Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2528
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
Loganathan & Others - Appellant
Versus
State by :Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.613 of 2004
Decided On : 26 September 2006
The judgment establishes the principle that the nature of the act committed by the accused must align with the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and discrepancies in evidence and delay in reporting do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, 307, 324 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused, the evidence presented, and the arguments made by the defense. The court considered the discrepancies in the evidence, the delay in the first information report reaching the court, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the witnesses. The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, setting aside the previous conviction under section 302 and modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was attacked by the accused at a brick chamber, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses and injured witnesses to substantiate the charges against the accused. The defense argued discrepancies in the evidence and the delay in the first information report reaching the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, setting aside the previous conviction under section 302 and modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, discrepancies in the evidence, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the discrepancies in the evidence, the delay in the first information report reaching the court, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the witnesses. The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, setting aside the previous conviction under section 302 and modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Final Decision: The Criminal appeal is dismissed with the modification in conviction and sentence.
(Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.03.2004 made in Sessions Case No.127 of 2000.)
M. Chockalingam, J.
Challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore dated 26.03.2004 made in Sessions Case No.127 of 2000, the appellants have filed this appeal. Before the trial Court, accused 1 and 3 were charged under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused was charged under sections 302 and 307(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found all the accused guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused 1 to 3 were acquitted of the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, accused 1 and 3 were convicted for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused was convicted for the offence under section 324 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The second accused was sentenced to undergo a similar sentence for each count.
2. The case of the prosecution, shorn of unnecessary details, could be stated thus : Accused 1 to 3 are brothers and they are sons of one Chinnasamy. P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased Subramani. P.Ws.3 and 4 are their sons and P.W.6 is their daughter. The deceased Subramani was having a brick chamber. The deceased used to store fire wood at the brick chamber. P.W.1 Selvam, P.W.2, Anusuya and one Mala are the employees of the deceased for the purpose of preparation of soil to be used for the manufacture of brick. They all belong to Idayankulam village near Kamavanpettai. P.W.5 Pushpa's father Narayanan was murdered by Chinnasamy, the father of the accused. Both the families had a dispute over the ridge dividing their lands and in that regard they had quarrelled on the night of 08.06.1999.
3. On 09.06.1999 P.W.1 Selvam came to the chamber by 03.00 am for preparing the soil to be used for manufacturing brick. By 05.00 am, P.W.2 Anusuya and Mala joined with P.W.1 in the preparation of soil. The deceased Subramani was also there. At that time the first accused came through the eastern side of the brick chamber. On seeing the first accused, Subramani tried to escape from the place through the western side, but accused 2 and 3 came from the western side and all the accused surrounded him. The third accused made a heavy blow on the head of the deceased and accused 1 and 2 also joined him in attacking the deceased on his head. The deceased fell down. On seeing this, P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased which is situated nearby and informed P.W.5, the wife of the deceased and their children. Immediately, P.W.5 accompanied by her children, P.Ws.3, 4 and 6, came to scene of occurrence and on seeing them, the second accused assaulted P.Ws.3 and 4; the third accused assaulted P.W.3 and the first accused assaulted P.W.6 with sticks they had in their hands. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence.
4. On information, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.22 reached the place of occurrence and obtained statement, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. He came back to the police station and registered a case in crime No.356/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is Ex.P.22 which was sent to Court and to higher officials for investigation.
5. P.W.23, the investigating officer took up investigation in the case and rushed to the scene of occurrence, where he made an inspection of the scene and prepared Ex.P.11, observation mahazar and seized blood stained and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He also drew rough sket
