Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJAN
Korakumar @ Muthukumar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1995
Decided On : 25 July 2002
IPC - Murder - Section 302, Section 34, Section 326, Section 506 II - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the statements of witnesses, and the legal implications of the evidence. The court analyzes the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused under Section 326 IPC and highlights the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court sets aside the conviction and acquits the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and three other accused were tried for the offence of murder. The prosecution presented evidence of a quarrel leading to a fatal attack on the deceased. However, some witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence was not conclusive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 326 IPC. The court highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence and the reliance on surmise and suspicion by the learned Sessions Judge.
Issues: The key issue was the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant under Section 326 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence presented was not legally sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The reliance on surmise and suspicion was deemed inadequate to support the conviction.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 326 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
The appellant, who is the first accused (A1) in S.C. No. 153 of 1993 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, along with three other accused, were tried before the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. and 506 II I.P.C. for committing murder.
2. The learned Judge, on convicting A1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC., sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and acquitted A2 to A4 of all the charges. Hence, the appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
On 3.5.1992, P.Ws.1 to 4 went to Rukmani Theatre at Uraiyur to view the second show cinema. At that time, a quarrel ensued between A1 to A4 on one side and P.Ws.1 to 4 on the other side which resulted in a panchayat; that on 4.5.1993 at about 8.30 p.m., when they were proceeding for panchayat, A1 along with the other accused, with an intention of causing death to the witnesses, attacked Ramalingam, the deceased in the case, who accompanied the witnesses, with a knife and caused injury to him; that at that time, A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased, Ramalingam, to enable A1 to stab him; that A1 stabbed the deceased on the thigh and just below abdomen; that the deceased was immediately admitted in the hospital and at 9.30 p.m he succumbed to injury on the same day.
4. P.W.1, Balu, who gave First Information Report in this case, though has stated that on 04.05.1992 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was proceeding with the deceased Ramalingam and three others for a panchayat in relation to the quarrel, which took place on the previous day, in front of A.1's Shop, an altercation has arose and in that altercation A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased Ramalingam and A.1 stabbed the deceased with the knife and caused injury to him. Immediately, they took the deceased to the hospital and thereafter he went to the police station and gave a complaint. But before the Court as P.W.1, he has denied having stated so. Therefore, he was treated as hostile. Similarly, P.Ws.3 and 4, also turned hostile.
5. P.W.2, Kannan, gave evidence and stated that he is residing at Telugu Chetty street, Trichy; that he knew P.W.1, A1, A2 and the deceased Ramalingam; that he knew about the occurrence, which took place on 04.05.1992; that he did not have any problem with the accused; that one day prior to the date of occurrence, there was some altercation between A2 and P.W.1 and another, which resulted in a Panchayat and to attend the said Panchayat P.W.2 went there; after the panchayat, when he was returning, he heard a sound and when he went back to the place of panchayat, he found Ramalingam with injury on his thigh; that A.1 was standing nearby with a knife; A.2 to A.4 were also there at that time; that P.W.1, one Krishnamurthy residing at Telugu Chetty Street and Ramalingam were present on the spot; that he went to the police station to give a complaint; that the injured was taken to the hospital by somebody; that after closing his shop, he came to know that Ramalingam died and that police seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased and P.W.1 under Ex.P.2 mahazar attested by P.W.2.
7. P.W.5, Rajadurai, deposed that he is residing at Mettu street; that on 4.5.1992 at about 11.30 p.m., police came to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.3 attested by himself and others and that the police seized blood stained earth under Ex.P.4; and marked the sample earth as M.O.3, blood stained earth as M.O.4.
8. P.W.6, Helper, working in Trichy Municipality, gave evidence and stated that there was no power cut throughout the day on 4.5.1992 and that he was examined by the police.
9. P.W.7, Dr. Kandasamy, who is now working in Government Hospital, Srirangam, deposed that when he was working in Government Headquarters Hospital at Trichy, on 4.5.1992 at about 9.15 p.m., one Ramalingam was brought to the hospital by his brother Mani and that he examined the said Ramalingam, who said tha
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
