Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2040
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU
Thangapandian @ Sankaranarayanan
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore District
Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2004
Decided on : 09-04-2011
For the Appellant:S. Manohar Ponraj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P. Kumaresan, Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reliance on weak identification evidence, lack of corroboration, improper framing of charges, and failure to prove essential documents and material objects can lead to a miscarriage of justice and result in the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE - Criminal Appeal - Sections 120-B, 147, 395, 450, 109 of IPC - The court found serious illegality in the trial court's reliance on evidence from another case, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 395, and 450 of IPC. The trial court's judgment relied on evidence from another case, leading to serious illegality. The appellant appealed the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's reliance on evidence from another case was deemed illegal, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the identification of the appellant by eyewitnesses, made for the first time in court after several years, was inherently weak and lacked corroboration. The court also noted that the charges were not properly framed, and the prosecution failed to prove essential documents and material objects. As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the trial court's reliance on evidence from another case, the strength of the identification evidence, the framing of charges, and the failure of the prosecution to prove essential documents and material objects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's reliance on evidence from another case was illegal and led to a miscarriage of justice. It emphasized that the identification of the appellant by eyewitnesses, made for the first time in court after several years, lacked corroboration and could not solely support a conviction. The court also noted the improper framing of charges and the prosecution's failure to prove essential documents and material objects.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. Any fine paid by the appellant was to be refunded, and the bail bond was discharged.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur. He stands convicted for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 395 and 450 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- [no default sentence imposed] for offence under Section 120-B of IPC; to undergo imprisonment for 6 months [description of imprisonment not given] for offence under Section 147 of IPC; to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- [no default sentence imposed] for offence under Section 395 of IPC; and to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- [no default sentence imposed] for offence under Section
450 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal.
2. The appellant was one of the accused in PRC No.7 of 1997. Totally there were 11 accused in the said case. But, the appellant was absconding and therefore, the learned Magistrate split up the case as against this appellant and committed the case against the rest of the 10 accused. On committal the case against the rest of the 10 accused was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet, who framed charges against all the 10 accused. The case was thereafter transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur. After framing of charges, two accused by name Murugan and Ravi in the said case were absconding. Therefore, the case against the said two accused was split up. The learned Additional Sessions Judge , therefore, rearranged the rank of the remaining 8 accused and proceeded with the trial in S.C.No.61 of 1997. Accordingly, the trial commenced on 25.09.2003.
3. In the mean while, the present appellant was secured and case against him was also committed by the learned Magistrate and the same was in turn made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur in S.C.No.11 of 2003. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, accordingly, framed charges against the appellant. Since the appellant denied the charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. The examination of witnesses in this case commenced on 20.11.2003 in S.c.No.11 of 2003.
4. On completing the trial in both the cases, the learned Judge delivered a common judgement on 27.01.2004 convicting the accused in S.C.No.61 of 1997 as well as the appellant herein [who is the sole accused in S.C.No.11 of 2003]. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.61 of 1997, the accused therein have preferred appeal in Crl.A.Nos.656, 163, 522, 177, 407 and 524 of 2004. As against the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.11 of 2003, the appellant/accused has come up with the present appeal in Crl.A.No.264 of 2004.
5. Since all these appeals have arisen out of a common judgement, I had an occasion to peruse the records and evidence, both oral and documentary, in both the cases. A perusal of the records in S.C.No.61 of 1997 reveal that there were a total number of 24 witnesses examined by the prosecution and 34 documents exhibited, besides 4 material objects. On the side of the defence, there were 2 witnesses examined and 2 documents exhibited. Insofar as the case in S.C.No.11 of 2003 is concerned, there were only 18 witnesses examined and 7 documents exhibited. No one was examined on the side of the defence and no document was exhibited. No material object was marked.
6. The prosecution witnesses in S.C.No.61 of 1997 by name Kannadi Mani @ Ramasamy [P.W.6], Dhanam [P.W.7], Thangaraj [P.W.8], Palraj [P.W.12], Kayalvizhi [the learned Judicial Magistrate] who conducted test identification parade [P.W.13], Subramaniam, S/o.Ramalingam [P.W.11], Sakthivel [P.W.16], and Chandrasekaran [P.W.17] were not examined during trial in S.C.No.11 of 2003. Similarly, fe
