Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1493
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
Kalaimani & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Inspector of Police - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.369 OF 2003
Decided On : 06 September 2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the sufficiency of evidence and the identification of the accused in court for the first time, as well as the appropriate charge under Section 302.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 IPC - The judgment discusses the identification of the accused, the sufficiency of evidence, and the appropriate charge under Section 302. The court modifies the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section 149 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Sec.149 IPC for the murder of the deceased. The deceased and others were crossing the road when the accused suddenly appeared and attacked the deceased, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and police officers who saw the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The defense argued that the witnesses' identification of the accused in court for the first time rendered their evidence unreliable.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the witnesses' identification of the accused in court for the first time and the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction under Section 302 read with Sec.149 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the accused in court for the first time did not render the evidence unreliable, especially since the accused had surrendered before the Court at Tuticorin and were identified by witnesses working in the police station. The court also discussed the appropriate charge under Section 302, modifying the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC instead of Sec.149 IPC.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal with the modification in the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
(CRIMINAL APPEAL filed under Sec.374 (2) Cr.PC. against the order of conviction dated 14.11.2002 in S.C.No.317 of 2001 on the file of the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai.)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J
A1 to A5 are the appellants herein. They were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Sec.149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.
2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:
(a) The deceased Thoppaiah, P.W.1 Ganesan and P.W.2 Murugan are the accused in a murder case in which, the father of A1 to A3 was murdered. This Thoppaiah and two others were granted bail with the condition that they should reside at Chennai and report to the Saidapet Police Station every day. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, namely, 10.12.1996, Thoppaiah, the deceased along with P.W.1, P.W.2 and others was crossing the road from the bus stop opposite to Saidapet Police Station to go to the police station. At that point of time, all the accused persons (A1 to A5) suddenly appeared at the scene and began to attack the deceased. P.Ws 1 and 2 saw the occurrence. P.W.3 Munusamy, a Constable attached to the Saidapet police station, who was regulating the traffic at that time, in the middle of the road also, happened to see the occurrence. When the Constables and other people tried to apprehend the accused, they ran away from the scene carrying the weapons in their hands.
(b) P.W.10, Head Constable attached to the said police station came out of the police station and saw the deceased lying down with blood injuries. Immediately, he took the deceased Thoppaiah to the Royapettah Government Hospital in a police jeep accompanied by P.W.1. P.W.12, the Doctor who examined Thoppaiah declared that Thoppaiah has already dead. This was immediately informed to P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police, J1 Saidapet Police Station.
(c) P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police came to the hospital, and obtained statement from P.W.1. The complaint is Ex.P-12. The F.I.R. is Ex.P-13. A case was registered in Crime No.2296 of 1996 against all the five accused.
(d) P.W.14 Inspector of Police on receipt of the message took up investigation, came to the scene and prepared observation Mahazaar Ex.P-1 and drew rough sketch Ex.P-16. The material objects like blood stained samples of earth were recovered. Thereafter, the body was handed over to P.W.13 Doctor for post-mortem.
(e) P.W.13 Dr. Ravindran attached to the Royapettah Government Hospital conducted post-mortem on 11.12.1996. He found 15 injuries all over the body. He issued Ex.P-15 post-mortem certificate. According to him, the deceased died after shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.
(f) P.W.14 Inspector of Police came to know that A1 to A4 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin on 27.12.1996. He applied for police custody. Accordingly, the custody was granted. In pursuance of the confession, M.O.1 series were recovered from the accused. Then the material objects were sent for chemical analysis.
(g) P.W.14 Inspector of Police continued the investigation. After completion of the same, he filed the charge sheet against all the accused.
(h) A5 was subsequently arrested. A common trial was conducted against all the accused.
(i) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-16 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked.
(j) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC, they denied their complicity in the crime. However, no evidence was adduced on their side in support of the plea made by them.
(h) The trial Court, after having analysed the materials available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to und
