Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5225
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Rajkumar & Others
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Inspector of Police Villupuram Taluk Police Station (Cr. No. 525 / 2005) Villupuram District
CRL.A. No. 525 of 2009
Decided On :12-03-2010
For the Appellants :M. Devaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment establishes the importance of corroborative evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and confessional statements, in determining guilt under the IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - 147, 148, 302, 324, 323, 325, 506(2), 149 - The judgment discusses the charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 147, 148, 302, 324, 323, 325, 506(2), and 149. The court analyzed the evidence, eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and confessional statements to determine the guilt of the accused and the appropriate charges and punishments.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the accused and the victim over a goat and a dog, leading to a violent altercation resulting in the death of the victim. The prosecution presented evidence of the altercation, injuries sustained by witnesses, medical reports, and confessional statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of various charges under the IPC based on the evidence presented, including the death of the victim due to head injuries caused by the accused. The court also considered the lack of common object for some accused and acquitted them of certain charges.
Issues: The key issues included the motive for the altercation, the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the nature of injuries sustained, and the attribution of common object to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and confessional statements to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also differentiated the charges based on the actions and intentions of each accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence of some accused, and acquitted others of certain charges.
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram, made in S.C.No.122 of 2007 whereby the A-1 to A-7, the appellants herein, stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as referred to infra:
ACCUSED - CHARGES - FINDING - PUNISHMENT.
A-3 to A-7 - 147 IPC - Guilty - 1 year RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-1 & A-2 - 148 IPC - Guilty - 1 year RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-1 - 302 IPC - Guilty - Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence.
A-2 - 324 IPC - Guilty - 1 year RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-3, A-4 & A-6 - 323 IPC - Guilty - 6 months SI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-5 - 325 IPC - Guilty - 2 years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-7 - 506(2) IPC - Guilty - 1 year SI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
A-2 to A-7 - 302 r/w 149 IPC - Guilty - Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Karungalipattu within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. 3 ½ years prior to the occurrence, the goat of A-1 was grazing in the filed of P.W.1. There was a wordy altercation between them. A few days prior to the occurrence, A-1 complained that the dog of P.W.1 has bitten his goat. But, P.W.1 replied that he had no dog at all. On the date of occurrence that was on 9.5.2005, at about 8.00 P.M., A-1 and others told P.W.1 that his goat died since it was actually bitten by the dog of P.W.1. In that count, there was a wordy altercation. Then they left the place. At about 9.00 P.M., A-1 armed with an iron rod and A-2 with an iron pipe and A-3 to A-6 with sticks came to the place of occurrence along with A-7, and at that time, A-1 attacked the deceased Gopi @ Selvakumar on his head with the iron rod while A-2 and A-3 attacked P.W.1 and A-4 to A-6 attacked P.W.2 with sticks. A-7 criminally intimidated others. At that time, there was a huge crowd gathered on hearing the distressing cry. Then all the accused left the place of occurrence with the weapons of crime.
(b) Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased were taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, and they were actually given initial treatment. P.W.1 was examined by the Doctor, P.W.9. Ex.P9 is the accident register copy issued by him. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, Ex.P6 is the accident register copy. The Doctor also examined the deceased and advised that he could be better taken to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry. Ex.P8 is the accident register copy in his regard.
(c) An intimation was sent to the respondent police station. P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1. At about 1.30 A.M. on 9.5.2005, he registered a case in Crime No.525 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(2) and 367 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court.
(d) P.W.10, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, gave treatment to the deceased. But despite treatment, he died at about 0050 hours on 10.5.2005. An intimation was sent to the respondent police. On receipt of the said intimation, the case was converted to Sec.302 of IPC. The amended FIR, Ex.P15, was despatched to the Court.
(e) P.W.13, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P16. Then, he recovered the material objects including the bloodstained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar. He proceeded to the mortuary at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, and conducted inquest on the dead body of Gopi in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest
