Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4406
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Manikandan & Others
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station. Coimbatore (Dt.,)
Criminal Appeal No.235 of 2009
Decided on: 24-10-2009
For the Appellants:T. Munirathnam Naidu, G. Ponnambala Thiyagarajan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Babu Muthu Meeran, APP.
The insufficiency of evidence, both ocular and circumstantial, to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt led to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Murder - Dispute over temple wall - IPC 148, 341, 302 - Summary: The deceased constructed a temple, leading to a dispute with the accused. The accused demolished the temple wall, leading to a confrontation where the deceased was fatally attacked. The court found the accused guilty based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased constructed a temple, leading to a dispute with the accused. The accused demolished the temple wall, leading to a confrontation where the deceased was fatally attacked. Eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence formed the basis of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.
Issues: Dispute over temple wall, eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and the credibility of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the contradictory and inconclusive evidence of eyewitnesses and found it insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants/accused 1 to 7 is set aside, and they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
(V. Periya Karuppiah, J.)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge made in S.C.No.119 of 2008 dated 111. 2008 where by the accused A1 was found guilty of offence u/s. 148,341,302 I.P.C, A6 was found guilty of offence u/s. 148 302 I.P.C and the accused 2,3 and 8 were found guilty of offence u/s. 147,341,302 r/w. 149 I.P.C, the accused 4 and 5 were found guilty of offence u/s. 147,302 r/w. 149 I.P.C and A7 was found guilty of offence u/s. 148, 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The lower court found A8 not guilty of any offence charged against him.
2.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal would be as follows:
(a) P.Ws.1 to 4 are the occurrence witnesses and out of them P.W.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.W.5 is a washerman and P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.7 and 9 are the V.A.Os P.W.8 is the sweeper, P.W.10 is an agriculturist in Vedachandur village. P.W.11 is the cycle shop owner. P.W.12 is acoconut merchant. P.W.13,14 and 15 are the agriculturists of Angalakurichi village. P.W.16 is the lineman in Malayandi pattinam. PW.17 is the V.A.O of Pongaliyur Village. P.W.18 is the Doctor and P.W.19 is the retired Deputy Collector, P.W.20 is the cycle stand owner and PW.21 is the photographer, P.W. 22 and 23 are the head constables, P.W.24 is the head clerk and P.W.25 is the Sub Inspector P.W.26 is the Judicial Magistrate and P.W.27 is the Investigating Officer.
(b) The victim was the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of P.W.6. The case of the prosecution would be that the deceased Sakthivel had constructed Veeramathiyamman-Karupparayan temple at Angalakurichi and the accused had raised dispute for obstructing the way and road for the said temple and there were dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. The persons in and around that area had caused public nuisance near the temple and so the deceased Sakthivel raised a wall around the temple for the purpose of keeping the said temple clean. The persons in that area wanted space for having the pathway and hence they complained to the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, who had also passed orders there on and on that basis of the Village revenue records and the V.A.O certificate-Ex.P.16. As per documents, it was found that the pathway belong to the villagers was blocked and the deceased Sakthivel was directed to remove the said wall put up around the temple and on that dispute the accused persons and the deceased Sakthivel grew enmity.
(c) In the meantime on 21.02.2006, during midnight the accused demolished the said wall. On the next day, 22.02.2006, P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased Sakthivel went to the Tahsildar and questioned about the demolition of the entire wall, for which A5 told P.W.1 to get lost with his son otherwise, they would demolish the temple itself. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had pacified Sakthivel and took him with them to the bus stop to catch the bus towards Kottur at Angalakurichi bus stand. On the same day at about 05.00 p.m the accused A1 to A8 assembled together and on seeing them the deceased Sakthivel had attempted to run away and the accused had chased him and hit with a coconut stick and attacked with koduval. When the deceased Satkhivel had prevented the attack, he was pulled down by A1 and had stabbed him with knife on the chest of Sakthivel and left the knife in his body. Thereafter all the accused had taken soda bottle from the nearby bakery and the accused 2 and 7 had attacked him and cut on the head of Sakthivel with koduval. Due to the injuries caused with knife, koduval knife and knife with the wooden handle and coconut stick produced as M.Os.1 to M.O.4 respectively Sakthivel died on the spot.
(d) Immediately, P.W.1 had given a complaint at Kottur Police Station to the Sub Inspector of Police and the complaint was registered in Cr.No.28/2006 u/s. 147,148,341,323,324 and 302 I.P.C and an Express F.I.R-Ex.P.23 was immediately despatched to Judicial Magistrate No.2,
