Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4082
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Dakshinamoorthy & Others
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police
C.A.NOS.153 AND 159 OF 2010
Decided On : 16-09-2010
For the Appellants:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for V. Rajamohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, APP.
Headnote:
Charges - Possession of Land - S.148, S.302 r/w. 34, S.307, S.323 r/w. 34, S.323 r/w.149 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including possession of land, assault, and causing hurt, and the corresponding punishments. The court also highlighted the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and the failure of the prosecution to present all relevant documents, which influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land possession, leading to a quarrel and a fatal assault resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution presented evidence of the occurrence and injuries sustained by the accused and witnesses. The defense argued that the deceased and witnesses were the aggressors and that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and did not present all relevant documents, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. As a result, the court acquitted the accused of all charges.
Issues: The key issues included the possession of land, the occurrence of the assault, and the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and the failure of the prosecution to present all relevant documents affected the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of the lower court was set aside, and the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted of all charges. The fine amounts paid were to be refunded, and they were directed to be released forthwith unless their presence was required in connection with any other case.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. The judgment shall govern these two appeals, namely C.A.Nos.153 and 159 of 2010. The first one is brought forth by Accused Nos.3 to 6 and the second one is brought forth by Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
2.The appellants, six in number, have challenged the judgment of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.16 of 2005, dated 02.02.2010, whereby they stood charged as follows:
Charges:
I A-1 to A-6 - S.148 IPC
II A-1 to A-6 - S.302 r/w. 34 IPC
III A-2 - S.307 IPC (Two Counts)
IV A-1, A-3 to A-6- S.307 r/w.149 IPC
V A-2 to A-5 - S.307 r/w. 34 IPC
VI A-1,A-3,A-4&A-6- S.307 r/w.149 IPC
VII A-4 and A-6 - S.323 r/w. 34 IPC
VIII A-1 to A-3&A-5 - S.323 r/w.149 IPC
Conviction and sentence:
A-1 to A-6 - S.148 IPC - 1 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default 3
months R.I.
A-1 to A-5 - S.302 - Life Imprisonment and to pay a r/w.34 IPC fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default 6 months R.I.
A-2 - S.307 IPC - 7 years R.I. and to pay a (Two Counts)fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default 6 months R.I.
A-2, A-4&A-6- S.323 - Six months R.I. and to pay r/w.34 IPC a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default 1 month R.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run consequently.
3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:
(a)P.W.1 is the second wife of deceased Devan. Devans father had two wives and through the first wife, he had five children, including first accused and P.W.4 and through the second wife, Devan was the only son. The father-in-law of P.W.1 owned 5 acres of land. He retained 1 acre 70 cents for himself. There was a Panchayat convened, but, the first accused, refused to hand over possession and he was retaining the entire possession of 5 acres of land. When he applied for electric service connection, the same was objected to by the deceased and therefore, there ensued a quarrel between them.
(b) On the date of occurrence, viz., 27.05.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., when the first accused was carrying on the agricultural operation by ploughing his land, the deceased along with other witnesses went there and raised objection for ploughing the land and thereafter, at about 12.30 p.m., they again went there and raised objection and hence, there arose a quarrel and at that time, when the objection was raised by the deceased for ploughing the land, accused Nos. 4 and 6 dragged P.W.1 and pushed her down and fisted her. The first accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his head; Second accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his back; Third accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his left leg; Accused Nos. 4 and 5 stabbed the deceased with a long needle on the back; Sixth accused attacked the deceased with an iron rod on the eye-brow, as a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down and died on the spot. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 attacked P.W.3, Second accused attacked P.W.2; and Accused Nos. 4 and 6 attacked P.W.1. In the course of the said transaction, P.Ws 1 to 4 sustained injuries. Immediately, P.Ws 1 to 4 were taken to the Uthangarai Government Hospital. They were examined by P.W.10-Doctor. He noted the injuries found on them. and Accident Register copy for P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P.8; Accident Register Copy for P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P.6; Accident Register Copy for
P.W.3 was marked as Ex.P.9; Accident Register Copy for P.W.4 was marked as Ex.P.7. From there, P.Ws 2 and 3 were taken to the Krishnagiri Government Hospital and they were given further treatment.
(c) On receipt of the information, P.W.15-Sub-Inspector of Police of the respondent-police proceeded to the Uthangarai Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.P.1. On the strength of the same, a case came to be registered in Crime No.214 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.16, the Express first information report was despatched to the Court. At about
20.30 hours, on rece
