Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Suryamoorthy
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2008
Decided on : 03-12-2009
I.P.C - Conviction under Sections 457,380,459,302 r/w. 34 and 398 - Summary of Acts and Sections: I.P.C Sections 457, 380, 459, 302 r/w. 34, 398 - The judgment discusses the evidence and legal provisions related to the conviction under these sections, including extra judicial confessions, circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of confessions before a Village Administrative Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and co-accused conspired to commit theft and broke into a house, resulting in the death of a woman. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, confessions, and material objects to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confessions, and the recovery of stolen articles. The court rejected the appellant's arguments against the admissibility and credibility of the confessions and upheld the lower court's judgment of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the admissibility and credibility of extra judicial confessions, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the participation of the accused in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of extra judicial confessions before a Village Administrative Officer, the credibility of confessions, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Sections 457,380,459,302 r/w. 34 and 398 I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereon to under go 5 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 457 I.P.C; 5 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 380 I.P.C; to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 459 I.P.C and to undergo life imprisonment u/s. 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C and to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment 398 I.P.C., against the accused, by the lower court.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal would be as follows:
(a) On 27.08.2003, at about 01.00 a.m appellant/accused along with co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar and the approver Ganapathi had conspired together to break open the lock of the house in Door.No.91 Chithode Rayapalayam Pudur and to commit theft inside the said house and accordingly the co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar had with the iron rod held in his hand broke open the lock and took away a VCD player with remote control worth about Rs.1350/- and thereafter at about 01.30 a.m they approached the opposite house in Door No.63 Co-operative colony Rayapalayam with the intention to commit theft and in pursuance the said common object the co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar with the iron rod had attacked on the head, face and body of one Periyammal aged about 55 years who was sleeping in a coir cot in front of the said house and the appellant/accused herein and the approver Ganapathi were present along with the said Athi @ Arunkumar for the commission of the said crime. Since the said Periyammal died due to the attack levelled against her the appellant/accused along with other co-accused and approver covered the body of the deceased and broke open the lock in the backdoor of the house and entered into the house for committing theft as planned by them. They took out the drawer of the table available there in search of things and since they could not see any articles inside they slipped away.
.(b) The Inspector of Police Chithode had registered a case on the complaint presented to him by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in Cr.No.341/2003. The investigator had applied to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode that one of the accused Ganapathi was willing to confess his guilt in the commission and participation of the offence and had come forward to depose all the details of the occurrence. The investigator had sought for pardoning and recording of his confession in order to treat him as an approver. The claim of the said accused Ganapathy was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the said court was pleased to tender pardon with the condition that the said accused should co-operate with the prosecution in the conduct of the case. Accordingly the said accused Ganapathi was recognised as approver and the charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused, co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar. The jurisdictional Magistrate took the case on file in P.R.C.No.10/2004 and after observing due formalities he committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and the said case was taken on file in S.C.No.69/2005 and it was made over to Fast Track Court No.I, Erode for disposal.
.(c) The trial court had framed necessary charges against both the accused. Co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar did not turn up for trial and upsconded himself and therefore N.B.W was issued and the same could not be executed. Therefore the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode had passed an order splitting the case against the co-accused Athi @ Arunkumar on 05.09.2007 and assigned a separate number in S.C.No.95/2007. Accordingly the trial court proceeded with the trial only against the appellant/accused.
3. The prosecution had examined 28 witnesses and had produced 44 documents and 29 material objects in order to substantiate its case.
4. The case of the prosecution as spoken by its witnesses would be as follows:
(a) P.W.3, P.W.4 are the daughters of the deceased Periyammal. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the son in laws of the dec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
