Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 4162
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Rajendra Babu @ Babu & Another
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Police Station, Vellore Distirct
Criminal Appeal Nos.210 of 2005 and 225 of 2005
Decided On : 13-12-2007
T. Munirathnam Naidu, Advocates. For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the benefit of doubt principle in criminal jurisprudence.
Headnote:
Motive - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 506(ii), Section 109 - The court found the evidence of the sole eyewitness unreliable and acquitted the accused due to doubts raised by contradictions in her testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt principle in criminal jurisprudence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was involved in a property dispute with another family. The sole eyewitness, P.W.1, initially implicated a different set of individuals in her complaint but later accused the appellants. The court found contradictions in her testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of P.W.1 unreliable and raised doubts about the prosecution's case. It emphasized the need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and applied the benefit of doubt principle in favor of the accused.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, benefit of doubt principle
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. It applied the benefit of doubt principle in favor of the accused due to doubts raised by contradictions in the eyewitness testimony.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused due to doubts raised by contradictions in the eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
As both appeals arise out of a common Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, dated 28.01.2005 in S.C.No.339 of 2002, they are taken up together for disposal by this common Judgment.
2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.210 of 2005, who was tried as A1 was found guilty under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As the major punishment is imposed for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., learned trial Judge has not imposed separate sentence for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
3. The appellant in Crl.A.No.225 of 2005, who was tried as A2 was found guilty under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
4. The veracity of the said Judgment is put in issue in both of these appeals. For the sake of convenient we have referred the appellants as A1 and A2 as shown before the Court below:
a) P.W.1 by name Kasthuri Ammal and the deceased by name Kothandarama Naidu are husband and wife. One Akulammal, who is the uncles daughter of the deceased possessed some wealth. It appears the said Akulammal came and lived with both the deceased and P.W.1. Some of the properties were bequeathed in favour of the deceased and P.W.1 by the said Akulammal. One Dhananjeyan who is the pangali of the said Akulammal claimed right over the property and according to the prosecution there was misunderstanding between both the deceased and the said Dhananjeyan and his sons Rajendran and Munirathinam over the execution of the same by Akulammal in favour of the deceased and P.W.1. A Panchayat was also held and a Civil case was also filed regarding the properties.
b) There was a dispute between the deceased and the family of the said Dhananjeyan, who was examined as P.W.11 and A1 and A2 intervened and mediated for settlement. It appears some settlement was arrived at whereby a sum of Rs.30,000/- should be paid to A1 and A2 by the deceased. On 01.08.2001 at about 11.00 p.m., when both P.W.1 and the deceased went to sleep, A1 and A2 came to the house of deceased viz., the scene of occurrence and A2 instigated A1 to cut the deceased and A1 cut the deceased twice on his head with knife. On hearing the cry from the deceased, P.W.1 got up and shouted. She was also threatened by A1 that if she informed the occurrence to anybody she would also face the same fate. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambur Police Station, which was registered in Cr.No.480 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P.17. P.W.18 the Sub-Inspector of Police made arrangements to send the F.I.R. to the Magistrate concerned and submitted the case file to P.w.19 for investigation. P.W.19, the In-charge Inspector of Police of Ambur Police Station, on 8. 2001 took up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.18, Observation Mahazar. He also made arrangement to take photographs of the scene of occurrence and conducted Inquest in the presence of Panchatdars He prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.19) and sent the body of the deceased for Post Mortem, through Head Constable Mr.Arumugam. P.W.19 recovered blood stained human hair, blood stained Beedi and Match box and one pair of cheppals from the scene of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses and sent the same to the Court under Form 95. Subsequnetly, P.W.21, Inspector of Police, Ambur Police Station has conducted further investigation in this case and examined witnesses. He arrested both the accused on 8. 2001 and recorded their confession statements in the presence of the witnesses. As per the admissible portions of confession Statements of both the accused (
