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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 1365

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Kolingiammal
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Perambalur District & Others
CRL.R.C.NO.1066 OF 2003
Decided On : 18-04-2007

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:R. Singaravelan, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1, V.R. Balsubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor, R2 to 5, A. Sirajudeen, Advocate.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable witness testimonies, timely submission of evidence, and proper investigation procedures in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Revision - Double Murder Case - Sections 302 IPC, 114 IPC - The court acquitted the accused due to discrepancies in witness testimonies, delayed submission of witness statements, and lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused. The court expressed displeasure at the Investigating Officer's conduct and recommended compensation for the victims' legal heirs.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a double murder where the accused were charged under Sections 302 IPC and 114 IPC. The prosecution relied on ocular witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, but the accused were acquitted by the trial judge due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of all the accused. The court expressed displeasure at the Investigating Officer's conduct and recommended compensation for the victims' legal heirs.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of ocular witnesses, delayed submission of witness statements, lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused, and failure to record the dying declaration of one of the victims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in witness testimonies, delayed submission of witness statements, lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused, and failure to record the dying declaration of one of the victims.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, confirming the order of the District Judge. The court recommended compensation for the victims' legal heirs and expressed displeasure at the Investigating Officer's conduct.

Judgment :-

This revision has been preferred by P.W.7,Kolingiammal, the widow of one of the victims in the double murder case in S.C.No.52 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Judge, Perambalur.

2. The short facts of the prosecution case relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows:

Due to previous enmity between the accused and the deceased No.1 Jayaraman and Deceased No.2 Kolinginathan, on 212. 1998 at 4.30p.m., near Koneri river bund , Valikandapuram village, while A4 was holding the deceased Jayaraman, A3 had stabbed Jayaraman on his stomach and all over his body resulting the death of Jayaraman on 1. 1999 at Government Hospital ,Thanjavur. A2 to A4 also caused grievous injuries with iron rod on Jayaraman, on his stomach, chest and back and hence A1 to A4 were charged under Sections 302 IPC and 302 IPC r/w 114 IPC.

2a) It is the further case of the prosecution that Kolinginathan was also attacked by A1 with a knife at the same time when Jayaraman was attacked by A1 to A4 which resulted in the instantaneous death of Kolinginathan.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate Perambalur had taken the case on file and after furnishing copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. had committed the case to the Court of Sessions Under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and on appearance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 302 IPC (2 counts) against A1 and under Section 302 IPC r/w 114 IPC against A2 to A4 and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

4) On the side of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined. Exs P1 to P13 were exhibited. M.Os 1 and 2 were marked.

5) P.W.1 is an eye witness to the occurrence, according to the prosecution. According to P.W.1 on 212. 1998 at about 4.30p.m., while he was returning to Mettupalayam from Valikandapuram after purchasing groceries , the deceased Kolinginathan, another deceased Jayaraman were taking bath in the river and at that time A1 Kannusamy, A2 Murugesan, A3 Subramaniyan, A4 Murugesan,S/0 Subbudayar came from behind a bush and A1 attacked Kolinginathan on the left side flank with a suri knife causing instantaneous death and three other accused viz., A2 to A4 had attacked both Kolinginathan and Jayaraman with iron rod and all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence, leaving Jayaraman in a serious condition. Since Jayaraman was conscious, he was taken in a bicycle to the hospital by him(P.W.1). The body of Kolinginathan was retrieved from the river water and laid near the river bund. The doctor at Perambalur Hospital referred Jayaraman to Trichy Government Hospital from where he was given treatment for 7 or 8 days and since he could not recover completely, from there,he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment. But without responding to the treatment Jayaraman breathed his last at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital three days later.

5a) P.W.2 is also an another ocular witness on the side of the prosecution who would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that on 212. 1998 at about 4.30p.m., while he was returning to Valikandapuram from attending to his personal work,he took bath at Koneri River along with P.W.1 and at that time, Jayaraman was crossing the river with his cycle along with Kolinginathan,before they could cross the river, they were attacked by A1 to A4 . The overt-act attributed by P.W.2 is that A1 had attacked Kolinginathan with a knife and A2 to A4 have attacked both Kolinginathan and Jayaraman with iron rods. Kolinginathan had sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death and Jayaraman began to ran away from the scene of occurrence after leaving his cycle, A1 to A4 chased and attacked him with a knife and iron rod causing grievous injuries all over his body and thereafter the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence and when P.W.2 saw Jayaraman along with P.W.1 , he was in a precarious condition after , retrieving the body of Kolinginatha























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top