Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1799
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Prasanna & Another
Versus
State by Inspector of Police
CRL.A.No.163 of 2008
Decided on: 18-06-2009
For the Appellants :Anantha Narayanan, S. Sasikumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: N.R. Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Sec.302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec.302 of IPC - The court relied on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory to establish the guilt of the accused. The prosecution's evidence was found to be doubtful and lacking evidentiary value. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Vaidyanathan, was found dead near a railway gate. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory to establish the guilt of the accused. The defense argued that the prosecution's evidence was doubtful and lacked evidentiary value.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the conduct of the key witness, was doubtful and lacked evidentiary value. It set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, including the last seen theory and witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidentiary value in the prosecution's evidence, particularly the last seen theory and witness testimony.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
M. Chockalingam, J.
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, made in S.C.No.319 of 2007 whereby the accused/appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC, a charge of murder, and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 was a resident of Thanvanadiyanpallam, Vallam. P.W.2 is his wife. The brother of P.W.1 by name Vaidyanathan, a bachelor, was living with them. He developed illicit intimacy with P.W.3 who was already married and deserted by her husband. On 4. 2007 at about 9.30 P.M., when Vaidyanathan was staying with P.W.3, A-1 and A-2 came there and asked him to come to a music party. At that time, the deceased was in a drunken mood. When he refused to come, he was forcibly taken by both the accused. When P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 who knew both the deceased and the accused, were walking across Thachampalayam Railway Gate, they found the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. A-1 was also having a big black stone in his hand at the time of the said quarrel. The Village Administrative Officer of Periapattu Village, examined as P.W.7, on information through his Assistant, proceeded to the said railway gate on the morning hours of 4. 2007 and found the dead body of Vaidyanathan. P.W.1 on coming to know that his brothers dead body was found near the railway gate, proceeded there, and after seeing the dead body of his brother, he proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police. On the strength of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.75 of 2007 under Sec.302 IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P18, along with Ex.P1 the report, were despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrates Court.
(b) The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.15, who proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and a rough sketch, Ex.P19. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P20, the inquest report. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Both the accused were arrested on the day at about 3.00 P.M. Both came forward to give confessional statements voluntarily. The same were recorded. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P21 and that of A-2 is Ex.P22. The accused produced M.O.7, a big black stone, which was recovered by the Investigator under a mahazar, Ex.P23. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition, Ex.P11.
(c) P.W.13, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vaidyanathan and has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P9. He has opined under Ex.P10 that the deceased would have died of head injury and poly trauma.
(d) Continuing the investigation, the Investigator recorded the statements of the witnesses. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and M.O.7 stone were sent for chemical analysis. Accordingly they were subjected to analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, and Exs.P7 and P8 are the chemical analysts report and serologists report respectively. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and 7 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses whi
