Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4469
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Manikandan
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2009
Decided on: 28-10-2009
For the Appellant:M. Vijaya Kumaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: Babu Muthu Meeran, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eye witness testimony, confession statements, and recovery of stolen items to establish guilt in a case involving conspiracy, murder, and theft.
Headnote:
Conspiracy - Murder - Theft - 120 (B), 302, 394 r/w. 397 I.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to conspiracy, murder, and theft under sections 120 (B), 302, 394 r/w. 397 I.P.C. The judgment highlighted the importance of eye witness testimony, confession statements, and recovery of stolen items in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused conspired to commit theft and murder at a jewelry shop, resulting in the death of the owner. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimony, confession statements, and recovery of stolen items.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented, including the eye witness testimony, confession statements, and recovery of stolen items. The court rejected the defense's arguments and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness testimony, validity of confession statements, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the eye witness testimony, confession statements, and recovery of stolen items to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized the immediate reporting of the occurrence and the conduct of the Test Identification Parade.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed.
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed against the first accused A1 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in S.C.No.145/2008 convicting the appellant/A1 u/s. 120 (B), 302 ,394 r/w. 397 I.P.C along with the second accused A2.
2. The facts of the case which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeal be as follows:
(a) A1 and A2 entered into a conspiracy to commit theft of jewels in Sivagiri jewellery shop belonging to the deceased Dheena Thayala Pandurangan established at M.L.R. Complex, Moomoorthy Nagar and also caused the death of deceased owner and in execution of the said criminal conspiracy A1 and A2 went to the jewellery shop at about 11 a.m on 212. 2005, and placed orders for the purchase of a baby ring and thereafter on 212. 2005, A1 and A2 went to the shop at about 09.30 a.m. A1 was sitting in front of the attendant of the shop and A2 followed the owner (the deceased person) into the adjacent room of the jewellery shop and attacked the deceased person with a deadly weapon knife with intend to cause his death and to commit theft of the jewels in the shop and thereafter A1 and A2 committed the theft of jewels in the shop and rendered themselves liable to be punished u/s.120 (B), 302 and 394 r/w.397 I.P.C.
(b) The case was investigated on the complaint given by the attendant of the shop and after the investigation final report was filed against the accused A1 and A2 and the case was taken of filed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur and the same was committed to Sessions court and the Sessions court had made over the said case in S.C.No.145/2008 to Fast Track Court No.IV Tiruppur and after framing charges against the accused A1 and A2, the said court had proceeded to record evidence on the side of prosecution.
3. The case of the prosecution as spoken by the witnesses would be as follows:
(a) P.W.1 had joined duty in the jewellery shop belonging to the P.W.2 and the deceased Dheena Thayala Pandurangan on 212. 2005 at about 11.00 a.m and on that day two persons i.e, A1 and A2 came to the shop and placed orders for the purchase of a baby ring and paid an advance of Rs.100/-and they promised to come on the next day for taking delivery of the said ring. Accordingly on 212. 2005 at about 09.00 a.m, P.W.1 the attendant of the shop was present and the deceased came and opened the shop and the said two persons (A1 and A2) also came in time and one of them (A1) was sitting in front of the attendant P.W.1 and the deceased Dheena Thayalan Pandurangan had gone inside the adjoining room to take the ring ordered by them for delivery and the other person (A2) followed the deceased into the said room and the said deceased and the other person did not return for 10 minutes. P.W.1 was about to enter the room but the person who was sitting in front of P.W.1 threatened her by showing a knife in his hand and she got frightened over the same she did not move and after ten minutes A1 asked her to get inside the room and on entering into the room the attendant could see the deceased lying dead with cut injuries on his body. The other person armed with knife took the jewels in the room and placed in his bag. Both the assailants threatened P.W.1 and went away after shutting the door. She (P.W.1) came out and saw the assailants going in a motor cycle towards Tiruppur. The said occurrence was informed by the attendant, P.W.1, to the neighbour a two wheeler workshop owner Mr.Vikram – (P.W.5) and someone in the crowd gathered, informed the Permanallur police over phone about the occurrence. The Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of the attendant P.W.1 at 10.30 a.m on that day.
(b) Thereafter the case was registered in Cr.No.583/2005 u/s. 302 I.P.C. and was taken for investigation. The Investigating Officer - P.W.20 visited the scene of occurrence at about 12.15 p.m an
