2008 Supreme(Mad) 4353
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Jalakandeswaran @ Eswaran & Others
Versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police
CRL.A.Nos.952, 981 and 983 of 2007
Decided On : 26-11-2008
For the Appellants:A2, N. Manoharan, Amicus Curiae, A6, T.V. Ganesh, A-3 to A-5 & A-7, R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: P. Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The sole testimony of a witness must be carefully considered, and recovery of material objects alone is not sufficient for conviction
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Criminal Appeals - Sec.374(2) - Judgment governed three appeals, C.A.No.952/2007 by A-2, C.A.No.981/2007 by A-6 and C.A.No.983/2007 by A-3 to A-5 and A-7 - Appeals against judgment of Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee, in S.C.No.151 of 2007 - Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 of IPC - Appellants found guilty under Sections 148, 307 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 of IPC - Life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment, and fine imposed - Acquittal of A-1 - Facts: Dispute arising from marital relationship, planned attack resulting in death and injury - Court's Finding: Prosecution failed to prove the participation of the appellants in the crime - Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, identification parade, recovery of material objects - Ratio Decidendi: Sole testimony of a witness must be carefully considered, identification parade as supportive evidence, recovery of material objects not sufficient for conviction - Final Decision: Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted of charges
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose from marital relationship, planned attack resulting in death and injury
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution failed to prove the participation of the appellants in the crime
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, identification parade, recovery of material objects
Ratio Decidendi: Sole testimony of a witness must be carefully considered, identification parade as supportive evidence, recovery of material objects not sufficient for conviction
Final Decision: Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted of charges
Criminal appeals preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Poonamallee, made in S.C.No.151 of 2007.
M. Chockalingam, J.
This judgment shall govern all these three appeals, C.A.No.952/2007 by A-2, C.A.No.981/2007 by A-6 and C.A.No.983/2007 by A-3 to A-5 and A-7.
2. These appeals have arisen from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee, made in S.C.No.151 of 2007 whereby these appellants along with A-1 stood charged and tried under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 of IPC. On trial, A-2 to A-7 were found guilty under Sections 148, 307 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-and default sentence under Sec.302 read with 149 IPC, 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-and default sentence under Sec.307 read with 149 IPC and 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.148 IPC, and the trial Court has made an order of acquittal of A-1 of all the charges.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.2 is a resident of New Colony, Porur. The deceased Edwin Jacob was his son. He was taking Karate classes under A-2. The deceased Edwin Jacob fell in love with the sister of A-1. Despite the objections raised by the family of A-1, he married her. Thereafter, the relationship between the spouses got strained, and he deserted her. Despite the request of A-1, he did not take her back, and hence they were on inimical terms. Then, on the request of A-1, his friend A-2 and his associates, the other accused, planned to finish him off. On 3. 2006 at about 6.00 P.M., Edwin Jacob, and his friend P.W.3 Munirathinam, proceeded to Karate School at Pariwakkam. When the classes were going on, they were witnessing for a while. A-7, who was already available there at that time, went in a motorbike and brought A-3 and A-4. They were talking with each other for sometime. Then, leaving A-2, the deceased and P.W.3, all of them left the place.
.(b) At about 10.00 P.M., the deceased Edwin Jacob, P.W.3 and A-2 proceeded in a motorbike. When they were just proceeding in the main road, A-2 informed the deceased to go on the right side towards Mettupalayam. Edwin Jacob questioned why they should go there. Then A-2 replied that they have got a marriage festival, and he was to attend the same. Accordingly, on the instructions of A-2, Edwin Jacob took the motorbike towards Mettupalayam. When they were just proceeding for a short while, they found another motorbike, and the light was also burning. A-2 told the deceased that it looked like his bike, and hence he asked him to stop the vehicle. Accordingly, the motorbike in which all the three were travelling, was stopped. Immediately, A-3 and A-4 were found running. They began to attack P.W.3, and P.W.3 who sustained severe bleeding injuries, was running from the place. After a short distance, he turned back and witnessed A-2 to A-7 armed with deadly weapons attacking Edwin Jacob. Then he immediately left the place and proceeded to the hospital of P.W.4, the Doctor, where he had the treatment. He was medically treated by P.W.4 at 11.00 P.M. The accident register copy is marked as Ex.P2. Since P.W.2s son did not come, he was making a search. Next morning, he was informed that P.W.3 was taking treatment in the hospital of P.W.4. Then he went over to the hospital, and P.W.3 informed P.W.2 that himself and his son were attacked by the accused.
(c) While the matter stood thus, on 3. 2006 in the morning hours, P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), was informed by his Assistant by phone that near the Meikkal poramboke, a male body was found. Immediately P.W.1 proceeded to the place and found the dead body. He prepared Ex.P1, the report, and went to the respondent police station where P.W.11, the Inspector of