2008 Supreme(Mad) 1743
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Albert @ Athimoolam
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police
Crl.R.C.No.1190/2005 and Crl.M.P.No.7241 of 2005
Decided on : 13-06-2008
For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Stalin, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Muniapparaj, Govt Advocate (Crl.Side).
The unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and discrepancies in the prosecution's case raised reasonable doubt and favored the accused.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Revision Case - Section 324 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the discrepancies in the evidence, including contradictions regarding the weapon used, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, and lack of independent witnesses. The court highlighted the importance of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and its impact on the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC for stabbing the victim. The court analyzed the evidence, including discrepancies in witness testimonies and the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, which raised reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the conviction and sentence were not in accordance with the law and acquitted the accused.
Issues: Discrepancies in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, lack of independent witnesses, and contradictions in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, coupled with discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, raised reasonable doubt and favored the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case succeeded, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the offence with which he stood charged.
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2005 made in Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2005 dated 01.09.2005 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kancheepuram confirming the conviction recorded by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.3 of 2001 by his judgment dated 11.04.2005 and the sentence of punishment imposed thereon for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
2. The sole accused in C.C.No.3 of 2001 who stood charged and tried for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, but found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the said offence with a default sentence to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of the fine, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur by his judgment dated 11.04.2005, had challenged the said conviction and sentence imposed on him before the lower appellate court (Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kancheepuram) in Crl.Appeal No.74 of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kancheepuram, by his judgment dated 01.09.2005, confirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the correctness and legality of the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:-
P.W.1 – Amudha and P.W.3 – Pushpa are daughters of P.W.5 – Adhilakshmi. P.W.6 – Mala is the daughter-in-law of Adhilakshmi. P.W.2 – Raji is also a close relative of the said persons. All of them are residents of Kallamma Nagar village within the jurisdiction of Uthiramerur Police Station. Albert (a) Athimoolam, the petitioner/accused was doing herbal business for which he used to borrow money from P.W.1-Amudha. Prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1-Amudha had pledged her jewels for lending money to the petitioner/accused. On 22.09.1996 at about 7.30 AM when P.W.1 and P.W.3 were chatting with each other in the vacant site situated near the house of P.W.1, the petitioner/accused came there. On seeing him, P.W.1 and P.W.3 asked him to redeem the jewels of P.W.1 by paying the necessary amount to the pawnee. Enraged by the same, the petitioner/accused slapped P.W.3 on her cheek. When he was questioned by P.W.1 regarding the proprietary of such an act on his part, he attacked her with a knife and caused a stab injury on her left side shoulder. Immediately P.W.2 - Raji took her to the Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu. P.W.4 - Dr.Jeyapal examined her, prepared Ex.P2 – Accident Register and gave initial treatment. After initial treatment at the said hospital, P.W.1 - Amudha was referred to Stanley Medical College Hospital at Chennai for better management, where she was treated as an in-patient and was discharged on 111. 1996. P.W.7 - Dr.Chittan was the Medical Officer who admitted her in Stanley Medical College Hospital and the Wound Certificate issued by the said hospital is Ex.P3. P.W.3 -Pushpa also accompanied the injured P.W.1 to the said hospitals. As the relatives of the injured P.W.1 had gone to the hospital to attend on her, the police was not informed of the incident till the expiry of 2 days. On 24.09.1996, P.W.3 - Pushpa lodged a complaint (marked as Ex.P1) on the file of Uthiramerur Police Station. Based on the said complaint P.W.8 -Manimaran, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1110/1996 on the file of the said case for offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. P.W.8 who conducted the investigation, examined the witnesses, collected documents, completed the investigation and altered the case into a case for offences punishable under Section 326 instead of offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 and submitted a final report alleging commission of the said offenc