SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1666

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
State by Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Sathasivam & Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997
Decided On : 13 December 2004

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Government Advocate, (Criminal Side). For The Respondents:V.Gopinath, Advocate, R1, M/s. K. Selvarangan, Senior Counsel, K.Asokan, Advocate, R2 to R4, M/s. Gita Asokan, Senior Counsel.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found no evidence of wrongful confinement, intentional abuse, or abetment to commit suicide, and noted discrepancies in the evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:

Custodial Death - Sec.306 I.P.C - Sec.342, 330, 218, 220 I.P.C - Summary: The court acquitted the accused police personnel of charges related to the custodial death of Vasantha. The court found that there was no wrongful confinement, no evidence of intentional abuse or abetment to commit suicide, and no unlawful confinement. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence and found no grounds for reversing the acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the custodial death of Vasantha, the second wife of P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi. The accused police personnel were charged with various offenses including Sec.306 I.P.C for abetting the suicide of Vasantha.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence of wrongful confinement, intentional abuse, or abetment to commit suicide. It noted discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Issues: 1. Whether the custodial death was due to torture by the accused. 2. Whether the findings of the trial court for acquittal are palpably wrong and warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no wrongful confinement, intentional abuse, or abetment to commit suicide based on the evidence presented. It also noted discrepancies in the evidence and found no grounds for reversing the acquittal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merits and no grounds for reversing the acquittal.

Judgment :-

For the Custodial Death of Vasantha, Respondents / Police Personnel were charged for the offence under Sec.306 I.P.C and other offences in S.C.No.190 of 1995 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. By the Judgment dated 14.08.1996, the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has acquitted the Respondents / Accused of all the charges. Aggrieved over the Judgment of Acquittal, State has preferred this Appeal.

2. Facts, which led to the present Appeal could be stated thus:-

A-1-Sadasivam was S.I.Police; A-2-Sundaramurthy-H.C.313; A-3-Gunasekaran-Gr.I. P.C.642; A-4-Kasirajan-PC 1748; and A-5-Rahamathullah-PC.1361 attached to Muthandikuppam Police Station.

3. Deceased - Vasantha is the Second Wife of P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi. P.W.5-Krishnamurthy is the Brother and P.W.7-Sellabangi is the Sister of P.W.1. P.W.3-Pattayee is the Moter of P.W.2-Srinivasan. P.W.6-Rajavelu is the Father of the Deceased.

4. P.W.2-Srinivasan was working in the house of P.W.1 and developed friendship with Deceased-Vasantha. On 14.03.1994, P.W.2 eloped with Deceased-Vasantha and both of them stayed in Pondicherry. Regarding missing of Vasantha, P.W.1 preferred a Complaint in Muthandikuppam Police Station on 17.03.1994. P.W.2 came back to the House and learnt from his Uncle that P.W.1 has given a Complaint, complaining about the missing of Vasantha. Hence, on 22.03.1994, P.W.2-Srinivasan and his Mother P.W.3-Pattayee went to the Police Station along with Deceased-Vasantha. P.W.1 also came to the Police Station. Enquiry was conducted by A-1 regarding Kidnapping, Abduction of Vasantha by P.W.2-Srinivasan and for the return of Jewels alleged to have been given to Vasantha by P.W.1 and his Son. After Enquiry, without registering any case, Vasantha was illegally detained in Muthandikuppam Police Station through out the day and Night on 22/23.03.1994. To avoid any complaint for illegal detention, A-1 is alleged to have obtained a Complaint from P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi on the Kidnap of his Wife-Vasantha by P.W.2-Srinivasan at about 10.30 p.m on 22.03.1994 and on that basis registered a case under Sec.366 I.P.C against P.W.2-Srinivasan. False entries are alleged to have been made in the General Diary and F.I.R that Vasantha and Srinivasan appeared in Muthandikuppam Police Station at 11.30 p.m on 22.03.1994. P.W.3-Pattayee-Mother of P.W.2-Srinivasan was also illegally kept in the Police Station on the night of 22/23.03.1994. False entries have also been made in the General Diary stating that as if Pattayee was staying in the Police Station for legal purpose.

5. A-1-Sadasivam is alleged to have beaten Vasantha on the night of 22/23.03.1994 at Muthandikuppam Police Station in order to extract a Confession Statement from her and to know about the Jewels and also to find out the places visited by her in the Company of P.W.2-Srinivasan. A-3-Gunasekaran-Grade I P.C.642 and A-4-Kasirajan-P.C.1748 were also present on 22/23.03.1994 when Vasantha was interrogated by A-1-Sadasivam. On the night of 22/23.03.1994, A-3 and A-4 were on Para duty and guarded the said Vasantha. On 23.03.1994 – 07.30 a.m, the said Vasantha committed suicide by hanging in the Muthandikuppam Police Station. A-1 to A-5 are alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by the said Vasantha. A-1-S.I. of Police has preferred a Special Report (Ex.P.6) on the Death of Vasantha on 23.03.1994. On the basis of Ex.P.6, Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur has registered the case in Crime No.96/94 under Sec.174 Crl.P.C.

6. Since the Death was Custodial Death, Inquest was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Cuddalore on 23.03.1994. The case was transferred to Crime Branch C.I.D., Cuddalore. On the basis of Statements of Witnesses – Krishnamurthy, Ramalingam and Dhandapani and the Preliminary Investigation, F.I.R was altered into Sec.302, 376(B) and 201 I.P.C under Ex.P.10-Express Report.

7. After the Inquest, the body was sent to Post Mortem. P.W.15-Dr.Mangayarkkarasi has noted the





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top