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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 486

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN
Sekar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2000
Decided On : 24 March 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.K.Kumar Advocate for Mr.T.Muruganantham. For the Respondents: Mr.E.Raja, Addl.P.P.

The reliability of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt are crucial in determining the outcome of a criminal case.

Headnote:

A2 Sekar and A3 Jagadeesan - Criminal Law - Sections 148, 341, 302 read with 34, 324 and 506 Part II I.P.C - The judgment discusses the evidence presented in the trial, the identification of the accused, the motive behind the crime, and the participation of each accused in the attack. The court analyzes the reliability of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt. The judgment also highlights the lack of evidence against A3 Jagadeesan, leading to his acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased Devadas and P.W.1 Asingam @ Baluchamy were attacked by the accused with aruval, resulting in the death of Devadas. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, medical reports, and police investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found A2 guilty based on the evidence presented, confirming the conviction and sentence for the specified offences. A3 was acquitted due to insufficient evidence against him.

Issues: The reliability of witness testimonies, the establishment of motive, the sufficiency of evidence, and the identification of the accused were key issues in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of P.W.1, an injured eyewitness, to establish the participation of A1 and A2 in the crime. However, it found insufficient evidence to establish A3's guilt, leading to his acquittal.

Final Decision: A2's appeal was dismissed, confirming his conviction and sentence, while A3 was acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Judgment :-

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J.

The appellants are A2 Sekar and A3 Jagadeesan. Along with the appellants, four accused were tried for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 302 read with 34, 324 and 506 Part II I.P.C.

2.During the course of trial, A1 died. The Trial Court, ultimately, convicted A2 for the offences under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 and 324 I.P.C. and A3 for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and acquitted the other accused. Challenging the same, A2 and A3 have filed this appeal.

3.The facts leading to conviction, in brief are as follows:

(a) The deceased Devadas is the cousin of P.W.6 Gunasekaran. There was a quarrel between A1 to A6 and P.W.6 Gunasekaran over the dispute in regard to the temple function. Ultimately, the accused family vacated their house from Rameswaram and settled at some other place. There were cases pending between them in the criminal court.

(b) The marriage of Gunasekaran's daughter was arranged to be held on 15.9.96. To attend the marriage, P.W.1 Asingam @ Baluchamy, the brother in law of P.W.6 Gnanasekaran and P.W.2, the friend of P.W.6 came to Rameswaram at about 11.45 p.m. on 14.9.96. P.W.1 Asingam @ Baluchamy and the deceased Devadas were proceeding to an hotel near Gandhi statue to take dinner. When they were about to turn to the market street, the accused persons hiding themselves in a nearby place, suddenly appeared and began to attack the deceased with aruval indiscriminately on various parts of the body. When P.W.1 Asingam @ Baluchamy cried aloud, A2-Sekar with an aruval gave a cut on P.W.1's forehead.

(c) When crowd gathered there, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Then, P.W.1 along with others took the victim- the deceased Devadas to the Government Hospital, Rameswaram. P.W.12 Doctor admitted the deceased Devadas at about 12.15 mid-night. He issued Ex.P.10, Accident Register. He also sent Ex.P.12, intimation to the Police. P.W.1 was also treated by the same Doctor. Ex.P.11 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.13 is the intimation.

(d) P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation, went to the hospital. In the meantime, the injured deceased was referred to the Ramanathapuram General Hospital, since his condition was serious. P.W.10, in the meantime, obtained a complaint from P.W.1. P.W.1 was admitted in the Rameswaram Government Hospital. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.9 is the first information report.

(e) On receipt of the message, P.W.13, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. In the meantime, P.W.13 received an intimation from the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram that the deceased died at 2.00 a.m. on 15.9.96. Thereafter, the case was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the Express Report.

(f) On 15.9.96, P.W.13 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.3, Observation Mahazar and drew Ex.P.15, Rough Sketch. He recovered blood stained earth. He went to the hospital and conducted inquest between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. Then, the body was for sent post-mortem.

(g) P.W.7, Doctor conducted postmortem and found 18 injuries all over the body of the deceased. He gave opinion in the post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries.

(h) P.W.13 continued investigation and took efforts to arrest the accused. On 30.10.96, P.W.13 arrested A3 and on his confession, M.O.3 aruval was recovered. Then, on 28.2.97, P.W.13 arrested A1 and on his confession, M.O.4 series, three aruvals were recovered. In the meantime, he came to know that the other accused surrendered before the Court.

(i) After his transfer, the case was taken up by his successor, Sundaresan, Inspector of Police. The said Inspector of Police, after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences referred to above.

(j) During the course of tri
























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