Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 1691
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
Koppadi China Anandan Chinna Asirvadam & Another - Appellant
Versus
State, by Inspector of Police, Yanam Police Station (Cr.No.70/94), rep. through Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry - Respondents
Crl.A.No.366 of 1999
Decided On : 07 July 2006
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence to support the prosecution's case, especially in cases involving threats and circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Threat - Criminal Law - Section 506, Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the evidence related to the threats made by the accused and the circumstantial evidence of the murder, ultimately setting aside the conviction under Section 506, Part II, I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of the deceased, who was ill-treated by her husband and brother-in-law. The accused were convicted under Sections 302, 201, and 506, Part II, I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence related to the threats made by the accused was not sustained, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence regarding the threats made by the accused and the lack of support from witnesses for the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of reliable evidence supporting the prosecution's case regarding the threats made by the accused.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 506, Part II, I.P.C. were set aside.
1. This Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.4.1999, made in 14 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.
2. Aggrieved over the conviction for the offence under Section 506 Part and sentence of 2 years' Rigourous Imprisonment, this Appeal has
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) A-1 and A-2 are brothers. P.W. is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. The deceased is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the brother of the deceased. The deceased and her husband (A-1) lived along with A-2 and his wife and their family in the same house. Therefore for about one month prior to the occurrence there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and wife of A-2.
(b) On 6.12.1994, the deceased on seeing her father, P.W.1 requested him to take her to his house and complained about the ill-treatment made by her husband (A-1). She also told that the second accused beat her and ill-treated her. A-1 reprimanded her for complaining about him to P.W.1, her father. After that, A-1 took her for fishing. P.W.1 informed A-1 that it is not the right time for fishing and went home. After sometime, Al came to the house of P.W.1 with the wet cloth and asked P.W.5, whether his sister namely, Pesingi Ramoji, had returned back, for which, P.W.5 replied negative. At that time, A-2 came and asked A-1 as to why he is speaking with P.V.5 instead of killing his wife Ramoji and putting her in a gunny bag. Thereafter, Al and A2 returned in cycle.
(c) P.W.5 informed about this matter to his father when he returned home. Immediately, P.W.1 went in the direction in which A-1 and A-2 had gone. Near a canal, P.W.1 saw A-2 pushing a body. P.W.1 questioned A-2, whether he killed his daughter. But, A-2 asked P.W.1 to go near the canal. P.W.1 also went to the place of the canal where he saw his daughter's body floating on the water. He took the body with the help of P.W.7 to the other side of the river. Then, they brought the body to the house of A-1 and A-2 and asked why they have murdered his daughter. Both A-1 and A-2 threatened P.W.1 that he would also face the same fate, if he divulges this matter to the police or to any other person. P.W.1 also noted that her daughter sustained bleeding injuries on her chest, right ear and head and her blouse was completely torned. Out of fear by the accused, P.W.1 did not inform the police immediately. After some time, he informed the panchayatdars, namely P.W.5, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W. 11 who in turn, informed P.W.1 to lodge a complaint with the police.
(d) On 23.10.1994, at about 03.30 p.m., P.W.1 accompanied by P.Ws.6 and 11 went to the police station and informed about this matter. P.W.20 Constable recorded the statement narrated by P.W. 1 and obtained the thumb impression of P.W.1. Ex.P-22 is the complaint given by P.W.1.
(e) In pursuance of the said complaint, a case was registered in Cr. No. 70/94 under Sections 302, 201, 506 Part II r/w 34, I.P.C. by P.W.21, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex.P-23 is the original First Information Report (F.I.R.). P.W.23, the Inspector of police took up investigation in this matter. The complainant identified the place of occurrence in the burial ground. In the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13, he prepared Ex.P.1, the observation mahazar. P.W.19, the photographer took photographs of the scene. The Inspector prepared two separate sketches in the place of occurrence.
Ex.P-43 is the sketch of the alleged place where the dead body was found. Ex.P-44 is another rough sketch regarding the cremation ground. At about 06.30 p.m. P.W.23 seized M.O.1, the 19 pieces of burnt remains of bones from the burial ground and also recovered M.0.2, the ash and M.O.3, 6 Nos. of burnt sticks.
(f) On 24.12.1994, P.W.23 went to Giriampet Village and examined the witnesses, P.W.7 and others. On 25.12.1994, he examined P.W.15 and recorded his statement. On 26.12.1994, at about 05.00 a.m., he went to Kakkinada and arrested both the accused a
