Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5382
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Shanmuga Ganesan @ Ganesan & Others
Versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police
CRL.A.No.555 of 2010
Decided On : 13-12-2010
For the Appellants:G. Karthikeyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, such as identification of the dead body and extra-judicial confessions, in establishing guilt in a murder case.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Sec.302, Sec.201 - [IPC Sec.302, IPC Sec.201] - The court found A-1 guilty of murder under Sec.302 of IPC and A-2 and A-3 guilty of screening evidence under Sec.201 of IPC. The judgment discusses the identification of the dead body, extra-judicial confessions, recovery of the weapon, and the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was murdered by A-1, and A-2 and A-3 were found guilty of screening evidence. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found A-1 guilty of murder based on the identification of the dead body, extra-judicial confessions, and recovery of the weapon. A-2 and A-3 were acquitted due to lack of credible evidence against them.
Issues: Identification of the dead body, reliability of witness testimonies, extra-judicial confessions, recovery of the weapon, and screening of evidence by A-2 and A-3.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the identification of the dead body, extra-judicial confessions, and recovery of the weapon to establish the guilt of A-1. A-2 and A-3 were acquitted due to lack of credible evidence against them.
Final Decision: A-1's conviction and sentence were confirmed, while A-2 and A-3 were acquitted of the charges.
(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.50/2010 whereby A-1 stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, while A-2 and A-3 stood charged under Sec.201 of IPC, and on trial, they were found guilty as per the charges, and A-1 was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence, while A-2 and A-3 were awarded three years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. They were all living together at Nehru Street, Narasimhapuram, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. The deceased Selvaraj was the brothers son of A-2. He used to come to the house of the accused often. As usual he came on the night hours of 17.9.2009. At that time, A-2 and A-3 asked him to prepare mutton. Accordingly, he prepared the same. At that time, A-1 came to the house. A-2 who praised the deceased, uttered the words "A-1 was useless, and the deceased was preparing mutton in a good manner, and thus he was to be praised." Thereafter, the deceased demanded Rs.100/- from A-2. Immediately, A-2 gave the same. On seeing this, A-1 got irritated. They were chatting for sometime. Thereafter, all of them went for sleeping. A-1 went to the upstairs for sleeping. During midnight, A-1 woke up, and suddenly he went to the place where the deceased was sleeping, took a sickle, attacked him at different parts of the body and caused his death. Then he fled away from the place of occurrence.
(b) A-2 and A-3 who are the parents of A-1, on seeing this, immediately put the dead body in a gunny bag, and they were carrying the same from the place at that midnight. The same was witnessed by P.W.14. When P.W.14 questioned A-2 and A-3 where were they proceeding during the night hours, they replied that they have got lot of coconuts, and therefore they put them in the gunny bag and were taking them to the other shed. After 15 minutes, they came back. A-2 and A-3 who took the dead body in the gunny bag, threw the same into the well which is situated in the land of P.W.2 which was under lease of P.W.1. On 21.9.2009, P.W.1 who had got the lease of the land from P.W.2, smelled the odor which emanated nearby the well. Then he peeped into the well, found the dead body in the gunny bag and brought to the notice of P.W.2. Then P.W.2 informed him to go to the police station. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by one Jayakumar, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.77/2009 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P29, was sent to the Court.
(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P30. Thereafter, he caused the photographs of the dead body and also the place of occurrence to be taken. They are marked as Exs.P19 to P28 respectively. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P31. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. On 22.9.2009, P.W.16, the brother-in-law of the deceased, identified the dead body and has also given a photograph which was taken at the time of the marriage of the deceased in which the deceased also posed. Thereafter, P.W.19 gave a requisition for the conduct of postmortem.
(d) On 22.9.2009, A-1 appeared before the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), P.W.6, when he was in his office, and gave an extra-judicial confession in respect of the offence. He also recorded the same. The extra-judicial confession given to P.W.6 VAO, is marked as Ex.P5. Thereafter, P.W.6 handed over the accused and also the ext
