Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1569
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Anandhan
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.974 of 2007
Decided on : 09-06-2008
For the Petitioner:K. Ethirajalu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N.R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and non-examination of a material witness can lead to adverse inference against the prosecution.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Conviction of the appellant for causing the death of a child - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - The court discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses, contradictions in their statements, and the non-examination of a material witness. The court highlighted the legal principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of a child by stuffing polythene paper in her mouth, strangling her, and thrashing her on a wall.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the non-examination of a material witness, leading to serious doubts about the appellant's involvement in the crime.
Issues: Contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, non-examination of a material witness, and failure to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Non-examination of a material witness can lead to adverse inference against the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
The appellant, sole accused in S.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore stands convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of one Thagira. On being convicted, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The allegation in the charge framed against the accused is that on 19/20.10.2006 at about 24.00 hours, when one Uma Maheswari and her child Thagira were sleeping in the Corporation ground, the accused called Uma Maheswari to give company for his pleasure and when she refused, he threatened her that he would do away with her child and accordingly, after the said Uma Maheswari left the place, he stuffed polythene paper in the mouth of Thagira, 1½ years old girl, strangled her and by holding her legs, thrashed her on the wall and threw her at the backside of the compound of the Thippu Sultan Mosque and the child died due to the injuries sustained on the head and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under.
(a) The deceased child is the daughter of P.Ws.6 and 7. They used to collect waste papers. On the fateful day, the accused, along with P.Ws.3, 6 and 7 and one Ravi, after collecting waste papers and selling them, consumed Brandy. After taking dinner, they went to the ground at Ramachandra Road. Due to the altercation between P.W.6 and P.W.7, P.W.6 left that place. Thereafter, a quarrel arose between the accused and P.W.7, since P.W.7 refused to give company for his pleasure. Later, P.W.7 left the place, leaving the deceased child. At that time, the accused, P.W.3 and one Ravi alone were there along with children. During midnight, the accused stuffed the mouth of the child with polythene cover, strangled her throat with his towel, thrashed her on the wall and threw her at the backside of the compound wall of Thippu Sultan Mosque.
(b) P.W.3, eye witness to the occurrence, in his evidence, deposed that he used to collect waste papers along with Ravi, Kumar, accused, P.W.6 and P.W.7. On the date of occurrence, at about 7 pm, after completing their work, all of them consumed brandy and had dinner. Thereafter, they went to the ground at Ramachandra Road. Due to the quarrel between P.W.6 and P.W.7, P.W.6 left the place. Later on, due to the quarrel between P.W.7 and the accused, P.W.7 left the place leaving the deceased child. Afterwards, he was in the ground along with the accused, Ravi and the deceased. At about 00.30 hours, the accused stuffed the mouth of the deceased with polythene cover, strangled her throat with his towel and thrashed her on the wall. When he questioned the accused as to his action, the accused beat him on his shoulder and threatened that he would do away with him if he reveals anything about the occurrence to the Police.
(c) P.W.6, father of the deceased child, deposed that he, along with P.W.3, Ravi, his wife P.W.7 and accused, were collecting waste papers. On the date of occurrence, till 10 pm, they were consuming arrack. At that time, there was a quarrel between him and his wife, P.W.7 and therefore, he left that place. He came to know about the occurrence through the police on the next day.
(d) As per the evidence of P.W.7, on the fateful day, P.W.7, along with P.W.6, accused, P.W.3 and one Ravi, after consuming arrack and having dinner, went to the ground where a quarrel arose between her and P.W.6, which resulted in P.W.6 leaving that place. The accused tried to outrage her modesty, threatening that he would do away with the deceased child. Due to the torture of the accused, she left the place and returned to the place of occurrence after two days. She was informed about the death of the deceased child and she identified the body of the deceased child.
(e) P.W.1 is a railway agent and a member of Thippu Sul
