Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 1313
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN
Rajendran & Others - Appellant
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1060 Of 2002
Decided On : 14 June 2006
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of presenting all relevant materials and evidence, and the consequences of suppressing crucial information in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Counter Complaint - Criminal Law - Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 326, 302 IPC - The court discussed the relevance of the counter complaint, the injuries sustained by both parties, and the lack of evidence to determine the aggressor. The prosecution's failure to present all relevant materials and the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence led to the court giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code for their involvement in an altercation resulting in injuries and death. The prosecution alleged that the appellants waylaid and attacked the witnesses, but the defense claimed that the injuries were sustained in self-defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to present all relevant materials and suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, leading to doubts about the case. The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside their conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around determining the aggressor in the altercation, the relevance of the counter complaint, and the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence to determine the aggressor, the suppression of relevant materials by the prosecution, and the doubts raised about the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and ordered the cancellation of bail bonds and refund of any paid fines.
(Appeal against the judgment dated 05.07.2002, made in S.C.No.104 of 1997 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, at Krishnagiri.)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Appellants/A-1 to A-5 have been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 147,148,302 read with 149,323,324,326 and 302 IPC. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.
2. The short facts, leading to the conviction, are as follows:
"(i) Both the accused and the prosecution party belong to the same party.
(ii) On 04.07.1995, one day prior to the date of occurrence, there was a funeral procession of one Sriramulu, who belonged to M.D.M.K.Party. During the procession, the M.D.M.K.people asked the shopkeepers to close their shops. When some of the local shopkeepers objected to the same, the crowd beat one Lakshminarayanan. Due to the incident, the local area people entertained a grudge against those who were involved in the attack made on Lakshminarayanan.
(iii) The occurrence had taken place on 05.07.1995 at about 08.45 p.m. When the deceased Ravi and the witnesses P.W.2 Venkatesh and P.W.4 Nagesh were coming along the road, all the accused came in a group and questioned them as to why they attacked Lakshminarayanan. There was a wordy quarrel between them. A-1 Rajendran took a broken soda bottle and stabbed P.W.5 Venkatesh on the left side of the face. A-3 Sudhi and A-5 Seluvappa caught hold of P.W.4 and A-2 Chandran attacked P.W.4 with a knife, causing injury on the left side of the stomach. P.W.4, on receipt of injuries, fell down on the floor. Then, both Ravi, the deceased, and P.W.1 Ramesh tried to lift P.W.4. At that point of time, A-1 came with a knife M.O.1 and stabbed on the left flank of the deceased; A-3 stabbed P.W.1 with a knife and caused injury on his left shoulder; A-2 stabbed P.W.6 Rajagopal on his left side stomach and left back with knife and A-4 Rajappa beat P.W.7 Ramalingam on the face.
(iv) After the occurrence was over, the accused left the scene. The deceased and the injured witnesses P.Ws.1 and 4 were taken to St.John Hospital at Bangalore.
(v) P.W.16, doctor, examined P.Ws.1 and 4 on 05.07.1995 at 11.00 p.m. and sent intimation to Koramangala Police Station.
(vi) On receipt of telephonic information, P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, Berigai Police Station, went to St.John Hospital, Bangalore, and recorded the complaint Ex.P-1, given by P.W.1 at 02.00 a.m. on 06.07.1995. He registered a case in Crime No.100 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 147,148,323 and 324 IPC against the accused, A-1 to A-5. On that day at 09.30 a.m., P.W.14 got death intimation of the deceased. Therefore, he altered the case into Section 302 IPC and sent message to the superior officers.
(vii) On the same day i.e., on 06.07.1995, at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.17, Inspector of Police, went to St.John Hospital, Bangalore, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ravi. Ex.P-19 is the inquest report. He also examined other witnesses.
(viii) Dr.Patil of Victoria Hospital conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-18, which was marked through P.W.16, doctor, as the doctor, who conducted post-mortem, was not available in India.
(ix) On 07.07.1995, P.W.18, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, went to the scene and observed all formalities. He also seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased. At about 01.00 p.m., he went to the hospital, in which A-5 was admitted, recorded the complaint at about 01.30 p.m., and registered the same in Crime No.101 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 147,148,323, and 324 IPC against one Sampangi, P.W.3, P.W.4 and four other named persons. On 12.07.1995, he arrested A-2 and A-3 and, on their confessions, recovered M.O.1 and M.O.6, knives. On 01.08.1995, he arrested A-1 and A-4 and, on their confessions, recovered M.O.7, knife. He also arrested A-5 on 02.11.1995.
(x) Then, the successor officer of P.W.18, namely, Paramasivam took up further investigation, e
