Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2463
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
Pichandi & Another - Appellant
Versus
State, represented by the Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2004
Decided On : 20 September 2006
Suppression of material fact and doubts about the prosecution's case led to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.
Headnote:
Suppression of First Information Report - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - [Section 302 IPC, Section 323 IPC, Section 324 IPC] - The court discussed the suppression of the first information report and the doubts raised about the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused and their acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking their brother, resulting in his death. The prosecution's case was based on the suppression of the first information report and the cause of death due to homicidal violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was suppression of material fact regarding the first information report, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. As a result, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused, and they were acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: Suppression of first information report, cause of death, benefit of doubt
Ratio Decidendi: The suppression of the first information report and the doubts raised about the prosecution's case led to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 and 2 were set aside, and both the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds executed by the appellants were cancelled, with any fine amounts paid by the appellants to be refunded to them.
(Criminal appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 06.05.2002 in sessions case No.269 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram.)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Villupuram in Sessions Case No.269 of 2001 by the appellants, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the said sessions case. They were tried for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with one Rani, who was arrayed as the third accused in the said case for having attacked their brother Sekar, the deceased, at 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001 in front of the house of the deceased as a result of which he died on 11.05.2001 in the hospital. The said Rani (A3) was also charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking P.W.2 Shankar. On completion of the trial, accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.250/- each carrying a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. The third accused Rani was acquitted of both the charges. Hence, this appeal is filed by accused 1 and 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the acquitted third accused will hereinafter be referred to in the rank as they were arrayed before the Sessions Court.
2. To bring home the charges the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and marked 21 exhibits and two material objects. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence.
3. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the evidence and exhibits is as follows : P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Sekar. The deceased is the brother of accused 1 to 3. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neigbours. There were family disputes regarding partition of the property. The elders in the village partitioned the property as well as the debts among the brothers and sister. As the debts were not cleared by any of the brothers, the creditors approached the deceased for payment of the debts. The deceased informed them that he would sell the land and settle all the debts for which the accused objected to. Saying that only if the deceased is alive he would be able to sell the land, accused 1 to 3 came to the house of the deceased at about 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001. The first accused attacked the deceased on his head with koduval, M.O.1. The second accused brought a stick, M.O.2, and beat on the head of the deceased. P.W.1 tried to prevent it, but she was pulled down by the second accused, who fisted on the stomach of the deceased. The third accused beat with a stick on the right leg of the deceased. P.W.2 when he passed through that way, saw the second accused fisting on the stomach of the deceased and the first accused was having a koduval in his hand and the third accused was armed with a stick and when he intervened the third accused attacked him on his head with the stick. P.W.2 fainted and fell down. P.W.3 also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.5 took the injured Sekar to the St. Thomas hospital at Chethupattu in his TVS 50 moped. P.W.1 went to her sister's house to get some money for treatment and went to the hospital.
4. When P.W.9 Dr.Brammananda Reddy, a doctor attached to St. Thomas Hospital at Chethupattu, Tiruvannamalai District was on duty at 10.00 pm on 05.05.2001, the deceased was brought with injuries. P.W.9 admitted him in the hospital and sent an intimation, Ex.P.7 to the police. P.W.10 Dr.Karthick treated the injured Sekar. Sekar was operated upon on the same day for the hole found in his intestine. Ex.P.8 is the case history. P.W.14 Dr.Androne is examined to speak about the treatment given to P.W.2 Shankar. According to him, around 10.00 pm on 05.05.2001 one person was brought with injuries on his head and that he treated him with first aid and thereafter he did not turn up. No wound certificate is marked or any prescription is mark
