SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 4443

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Babu
Versus
State by: The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police Station, Coimbatore District
CRL. A. No. 467 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.M. Duraiswamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence, ownership of the vehicle, identification parade proceedings, and recovery of the weapon of crime in establishing guilt in a criminal conspiracy and murder case.

Headnote:

Criminal Conspiracy - Murder - 120(B) r/w 364, 392, 302 IPC - 302 r/w 34 IPC - 201 IPC - [120(B) r/w 364, 392, 302, 302 r/w 34, 201 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to criminal conspiracy, murder, and related sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for a chain of circumstances without a snap to establish guilt. The court also highlighted the significance of ownership of the vehicle, identification parade proceedings, and recovery of the weapon of crime in reaching its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant/A-1 and others conspired to engage a vehicle, caused the death of the driver, and stole the vehicle. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the charges.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Judge found the appellant/A-1 guilty under Sections 302, 392 r/w 397 and 201 of IPC and awarded the punishment. The trial Judge acquitted A-3 based on his confession and granted pardon. A-2, A-4, and A-5 were acquitted from all charges.

Issues: The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the charges. The defense contested the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the ownership of the vehicle, witness testimonies, and recovery of the weapon of crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for a chain of circumstances without a snap to establish guilt. The court also highlighted the significance of ownership of the vehicle, identification parade proceedings, and recovery of the weapon of crime in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

Judgment :-

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.227(A) of 2005 whereby the appellant/A-1 stood charged along with five others and on trial, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:

ACCUSED CHARGES FINDING PUNISHMENT A-1 to A-5 120(B) r/w 364, 392, 302 IPC Not guilty Acquitted A-1 to A-3 364 IPC Not guilty Acquitted A-2 A-1 & A-3 392 IPC 392 r/w 397 IPC A-2 Not guilty A-1 guilty A-3 not guilty 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence A-2 & A-3 acquitted A-1 & A-3 A-2 302 IPC 302 r/w 34 IPC A-1 guilty A-2 & A-3 not guilty Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence A-2 & A-3 acquitted A-1 to A-3 201 IPC A-1 guilty A-2 & A-3 not guilty 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence A-2 & A-3 acquitted

A-4 & A-5

302, 364, 392, 302 r/w 109 IPC

Not guilty

Acquitted

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(a) P.W.3 is the owner of the vehicle Tata Qualis bearing registration No.KL 7 AB 3240, marked as M.O.1, which stood in the name of his mother. The appellant/A-1 along with the other accused hatched up a conspiracy to engage a vehicle and after causing the death of the driver of the vehicle, to steal the same. As per the conspiracy, A-1 and A-3 met P.W.3 on 13.5.2003 at about 11.30 A.M. and after making a payment of Rs.500/-, they informed their desire to take the vehicle to Bangalore that evening. Accordingly, all the accused persons went to P.W.3s place and took the vehicle. The vehicle was also driven by the deceased John @ Johni. When the vehicle was actually proceeding on its way, they stopped the same nearby a place called Karumathampatti in order to have tiffin in a shop run by P.W.5. After they had the food, the deceased driver made a request that they could go sometime later. But, it was not agreed by the accused. Immediately, there was a quarrel, and it was P.W.5 who pacified the same. Then the car was taken therefrom, and nearby the place of occurrence, the car was stopped on the roadside, and the driver Johni was sleeping. Taking advantage of the same, as per the plan hatched up, A-2 tied him with a towel, while A-3 was watching. A-1 stabbed him on his chest with a knife, and A-3 also joined with him later in stabbing him, and thus they caused the death of Johni and threw the dead body near, and they also removed M.O.6, the seat of the car, which was actually bloodstained. Then they left the place of occurrence.

(b) On 14.5.2003 at about 7.30 A.M., when P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Karuthampatti, was in his office, he was informed by P.W.2, Village Assistant, that a dead body of a male was found in the place of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the spot and after ascertaining the fact, went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.135 of 2003 under Sec.302 IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P27, was despatched to the Court.

(c) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police of that 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.P7, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P37. Then he recovered from the place of occurrence M.O.5, towel, and M.O.6, car seat cover, and other material objects under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Johni in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P35. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy.

(d) P.W.10, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Joh

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top