Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5442
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Killer Thiayagu @ Thiyagu & Others
Versus
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai
Crl. A. No.667 of 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2010
For the Appellant:V. Gopinath, Senior counsel for R. Kishorekumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The court can rely on the evidence of a single witness if it is trustworthy and inspires confidence, and medical evidence can corroborate ocular testimony.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 341, 302 read with 34 - Summary: The court found the first accused guilty of murder based on the trustworthy evidence of a single witness, the deceased's brother, and medical evidence. The judgment of the Trial Court was sustained for the first accused, but set aside for accused 2 to 4, who were acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a real estate broker, was attacked and killed by the accused due to disputes over money collection and a TASMAC shop. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the deceased's brother as the sole eyewitness.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to prove its case for accused 2 to 4, but the guilt of the first accused was established based on the trustworthy evidence of the eyewitness and medical evidence.
Issues: Disputes over money collection and a TASMAC shop, delay in sending the First Information Report, and the credibility of the eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can accept the evidence of a single witness if it inspires confidence, and medical evidence can corroborate ocular testimony.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Trial Court was sustained for the first accused, but set aside for accused 2 to 4, who were acquitted.
(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District in S.C. No.76 of 2010, whereby accused 1 to 4 stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-
(i) P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. He was doing Real Estate Broker business at Ambattur within the jurisdiction of the respondent-police. The deceased was also running a Bar. He used to collect money for the festival of Perumal temple. The accused/appellants are unauthorisedly collecting money and appropriated the same and the deceased questioned the same. Apart from this, the accused were collecting money from all and also asked the deceased to give mamool and often giving him trouble. The deceased, though cautioned them, shifted his shop since he could not tolerate the trouble given by them. When one Pandian took a TASMAC shop and running the same, the first accused has suspected that the deceased helped the said Pandian in getting the TASMAC shop on auction and thus, the first accused was in inimical terms with the deceased.
(ii) On 4.3.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., on the request of the deceased, both the deceased and P.W.1 went in a Two wheeler bearing registration No.TN20-BZ-6826 to see one Joseph Samuel.After seeing him, they returned. When them came near Kalaivanar Main Road, the first accused, who was standing on the side of the road, called the deceased and immediately, the deceased asked his brother to stop the vehicle and got down and went nearby. Immediately, the first accused, who not only instigated others to attack the deceased, but also attacked the deceased. The first accused cut the deceased first with patta knife on his left leg, while second accused on his head and accused 3 and 4 attacked him on his face and neck respectively. P.W.1 went nearby his brother, raising the cry. When one of the accused Moses Raj was about to attack him, P.W.1 ran away from the place of occurrence and on hearing the distressing cry, the crowd gathered. The appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. All family members were present and came to the place of occurrence.
(iii) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent-police and gave Ex.P1 report. P.W.15 Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P1 report, registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Express First Information Report Ex.P17 was despatched to the Court. P.W.15 took up investigation, went to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P2 Observation mahazar and Rough sketch Ex.P18. Photos were taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.15 also recovered M.O.8 blood stained mud, M.O.9 ordinary mud, M.O.6 four blood stained covers and M.O.7 one pen from the place of occurrence under the cover of mahazar.
(iv) Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and inquest report is marked as Ex.P19. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to autopsy. P.W.14 Doctor conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P15 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and due to cut throat injury and multiple injuries.
(v) Pending investigation, all the accused surrendered before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. P.W.15 made a requisition for police custody and the same was ordered on 9.3.2010. The accused were taken to police custody. Thereafter, they came forward to give their confession statements voluntarily and the same were recorded in the presence of witnesse
