Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4397
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Krishnakumar
Versus
State, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, B-8 Police Station, Coimbatore
Crl. A. No.331 of 2010
Decided On : 04-10-2010
For the Petitioner:G. Karthikeyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 302 - [MURDER] - [Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and forensic reports, and found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and the second accused, brothers, were charged with the murder of an individual with whom their mother had developed intimacy. The prosecution presented witness testimonies and forensic reports to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be highly doubtful and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court scrutinized the witness testimonies and forensic reports, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, including inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the careful scrutiny of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and forensic reports, and the determination that the evidence was highly doubtful and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the appellant of all charges. The appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody was required in connection with any other case, and any fine amount paid was ordered to be refunded to him.
(Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore in S.C. No.266 of 2008, whereby the appellant ranked as first accused along with second accused stood charged and tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and found the appellant/first accused guilty under Section 302 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 six months and acquitted the second accused.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:
(i) Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. They are sons of one Jayalakshmi. She was carrying on a street shop in a Banyan tree where she is vending idlis. She developed intimacy with the deceased. When it came to the knowledge of the accused and the other brother, they warned him, saying that because of their intimacy, their marriage was delayed. But, they did not heed to them and they continued their intimacy.
(ii) On the date of occurrence i.e. on 16.3.2008, when P.W.1 was in his chicken shop, he heard the quarrel between the accused 1 and 2 on one side and the deceased on the other side. When he came out, he found the first accused attacking the deceased with stone on his hip and the deceased fell down and thereafter, the second accused put the stone on his head. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. The accused immediately ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 took an auto, sent the deceased for treatment along with P.W.4, but on the way to the Hospital, he died. P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.P1 to the respondent-police, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.346 of 2008 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P21 First Information Report was despatched to the Court.
(iii) P.W.23 took up investigation and went to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P10 and Rough Sketch Ex.P22. He caused photographs through P.W.16 Photographer and the photographs are marked as Ex.P5 series. All the material objects were recovered from the place of occurrence. And sent to Forensic Department for chemical analysis. Ex.Ps18 and 19 are the chemical analysis reports and Ex.P20 is the serological report. Thereafter, P.W.23 conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P23. The dead body was subjected to autopsy through requisition letter Ex.P14 by P.W.21 Doctor and the post-mortem Certificate is marked as Ex.P15 and Final Opinion is marked as Ex.P16, where it is opined that the deceased died due to Cranio cerebral injuries sustained by him.
(iv) Pending investigation, on 17.3.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., the accused appeared before 44th Ward Councilor and the confession statement given by the appellant voluntarily was recorded by him in the presence of witnesses and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P16. Thereafter, the appellant produced blood stained shirt M.O.2 and the same was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P5. Thereafter, P.W.24 Inspector of Police took up investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, P.W.25 Inspector of Police took up investigation and recorded the statements. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and relied on 25 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 8. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments a
