Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4230
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Ravi
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2007
Decided On : 18-11-2008
For the Appellant:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for M/s. L. Mahendran, Advocates.
For the Respondent: P. Kumaresan, APP.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Appeal - 341, 302, 201, 3(2)(5) of The Prevention of Atrocities Act - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, and the identification of the burial place of the deceased. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly murdered by the accused and buried. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and an extra judicial confession. The trial court found the accused guilty, but the appellant challenged the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession were not considered sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. The evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant was acquitted of the charges.
M. Chockalingam, J.
Challenge is made to a Judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Special S.C.No.5 of 2004, whereby the appellant/accused-1 along with two others stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 341, 302, 201 of IPC and 3(2)(5) of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and awarded punishment as detailed below:-
Conviction and sentence:
S. 341 IPC - a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo 1 week SI. S.302 IPC - life imprisonment S.201 IPC - 2 years RI S (3)(2)(5) of The Prevention of Atrocities Act - 10 years RI S (3)(2)(6) of The Prevention of Atrocities Act – 2 years RI All the sentences should run concurrently. The trial Court made an order of acquittal against A2 and A3.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Criminal Appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. They had 3 children. The deceased was originally working in TVS Company and thereafter he was dismissed from service. He took on lease the landed property of Kannappanaidu and he was cultivating the land and apart from that, P.W.3 was lending money for interest. Monies were actually lent to the first and third accused. For getting interest, the deceased used to come to the house of A1 and A3. In that, there were quarrels that arose between them. While P.W.5 belonged to Pulivalam Village, the deceased also belonged to the same village and on many occasions, the deceased used to create quarrels. On a number of occasions he outraged the modesty of women. On 312. 2002, a petition was given to the respondent police by one Sankari, which was treated as petition No.175/2002 for an attempt to outrage the modesty. An enquiry was made and it was pacified. Equally, on 14.01.2003 a petition was given against the deceased and was treated as Petition No.9/2003 and P.W.15, higher official also conducted enquiry and pacified the same. On 12.06.2003, the deceased attempted to outrage the modesty of the first accused, pursuant to which a case came to be registered in Crime No.108 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506(ii) of the Penal Code. An express FIR was taken and was recorded so. When there has been a quarrel which arose between the first accused and the deceased as to the conduct of the deceased in outraging the modesty of the wife of the first accused, the first and second accused made a plan and caused the death of the deceased.
(b) While the matter stood thus, on 14.08.2004, when P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer, was in his office at about 08.00 a.m., the 1st accused appeared before him and gave a confessional statement that it was he along with other accused has killed the deceased. Then the statement was recorded by P.W.1, which was reduced into writing, and was marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1, along with his report Ex.P.2, produced the accused before the Police Station. P.W.15, Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, on the strength of Exs.P1 and P2, registered a case in Crime No.177 of 2004 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The express F.I.R. Ex.P26 was despatched to Court.
(c) Then, the matter was placed before P.W.17, Deputy Superintendent of Police of the concerned Division, who took up investigation. On receipt of the copy of the FIR, she proceeded to the spot and she recorded the confession given by the accused. She has also taken A1 to the place of occurrence, from where M.O.1 blood stained earth, M.O.2, sample earth were recovered under a cover of mahazaar. Ex.P.4. She also recovered M.O.3 Cycle under a cover of mahazaar Ex.P.5 and prepared an observation mahazaar Ex.P.3 and a rough sketch Ex.P.30. Photographs were taken which were marked as Ex.P.31 series. Thereafter, she also took the first accused to the place, where the first accused identified the place where the dead body was buried.
(d) P.W.8, Ta
