SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 623

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
K. Muthuramalingam and Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Cri.O.P. No. 7779 of 1997
Decided On : 19 June 1997

Appearing Advocates:K. M. Subramaniam, Babu Muthumeeran, Advocates.

In a case of murder, the court may deny bail to the accused if there is a possibility of them fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - BAIL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 147, 148, 341, 324, INDIAN PENAL CODE - PETITIONERS SEEKING BAIL IN A CASE OF MURDER OF A LADY COUNCILLOR - COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL TILL THE EYE WITNESSES IN THE CASE ARE EXAMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, along with others, allegedly murdered a lady councillor in a brutal attack in broad daylight in a main bazar. The victim was elected as a Lady Councillor for Ward No. 59, in the Corporation Election at Madurai in Oct. 1996. The petitioners and the victim had a dispute during the election campaign and after the victim won the election. The petitioners and others allegedly attacked the victim with weapons and caused injuries all over her body, resulting in her death.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence of murder of the victim. The court also found that the petitioners have bad antecedents and that there is a possibility of them fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses if released on bail.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in a case of murder? 2. Whether the court should consider the possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses while deciding on bail?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners are not entitled to bail till the eye witnesses in the case are examined by the trial court. The court relied on the principle that the liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the Court, but when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder, the court need not sacrifice the security of the society at the altar of individual liberty.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for bail.

Judgment :-

Leelavathi, the unfortunate victim in this case, has been done away with, in a brutal attack allegedly made by the petitioners and another in a broad-day light in a main bazar at Villapuram, Madurai, at about 8.30 a.m. on 23-4-1997, probably for having elected as a Lady Councillor for Ward No. 59, in the Corporation Election at Madurai in Oct. 1996

2. The petitioners herein are seeking grant of bail from this Court. There are totally six accused in this case. The petitioners are A-2, A-1, A-3 to A-5 respectively. They are concerned with Cr. No. 334 of 1997 of Keerathurai Police Station, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302, I.P.C

3. The facts are these :-

(i) The first informant in this case Mr. V. K. Kuppusamy, is the husband of the victim Leelavathi. He is working as Tinker in eversilver polishing shed. Both husband and wife were residing along with their three daughters in Nadar compound, Villapuram main road, Madurai. The victim Leelavathi was a full time party worker and District Council Member of CPI (M) party

(ii) In Oct. 1996, in the Corporation election conducted at Madurai Corporation, she contested as a candidate affiliated to CPM., for the 59th ward of Madurai Corporation. One Valli, wife of Karinmalayan alias Annadurai (2nd petitioner) also contested in the same ward as DMK candidate. There was a tough fight between them

(iii) However, in a narrow margin the victim Leelavathi got elected. When she was declared elected at the counting centre., viz. at Medical College, Madurai, by the Election Officer, after the counting was over, the first and second petitioners herein - Mathuramalingam and Kerimalanyan alias Annadurai, the husband of the said Valli, the DMK candidate, quarrelled with the victim, as well as the Election Officer, objecting to the said declaration. They also attempted to prevent the Election Officer, by creating a scene, from issuing necessary certificate, declaring that she got elected. However, with the help of police the victim obtained necessary certificate from the Election Officer, and returned home(iv) On that night itself, the petitioners 1 and 2 and others came to the house of the victim and quarrelled with them. But on the intervention of neighbours, the petitioners 1 and 2 and other men disbursed and went away

(v) Since in the local area of Villapuram, there was no tap for drinking water, the victim Councillor, took effective steps for erecting pipelines for drinking water in the entire area, and successfully completed the work. Due to this also, the petitioners, out of jealously, developed enmity with the victim

(vi) On 23-4-1997, at about 8.30 a.m. the victim Leelavathi went to a grocery shop situate near her house, and was purchasing groceries. At that time, the first informant, her husband and his friends were talking together at the corner of the street. Suddenly, the petitioners along with another armed with weapons - aruval, appeared at the scene, by coming over from east, and then began to cut the victim with aruval indiscriminately, and caused injuries all over her body. On seeing this ghastly Sight, the first informant and others ran towards the victim. In the meantime, the victim cried aloud, and fell down on the ground, in a pool of blood, and died instantaneously. All the petitioners and another ran towards east. Immediately thereafter, at 10.00 a.m. the first informant gave a complaint to the respondent/police, who in turn registered the case in Cr. No. 334 of 1997, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, against, two named persons (the petitioners 1 and 2 herein) and four others

(viii) During the course of inquest, the investigating agency came to know the names of other accused, who actually participated in the commission of the crime along with the petitioner 1 and 2. The investigation conducted by the respondent, disclosed that the 1st petitioner Muthuramalingam (A-2) armed with aruval cut the victim on th






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top