Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4529
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
State rep. By Inspector of Police Dharmapuri District
Versus
Basavan @ Mani @ Latchumanan & Others
CRL.A.No.154 of 2010
Decided On : 20-10-2010
For the Appellant: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:R. Thamarai Selvan, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for circumstantial evidence to exclusively point to the accused's guilt and the need to establish the nexus of the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
ACQUITTAL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 147, Section 148, Section 364(A), Section 344, Section 120(B), Section 302, Section 149, Section 201, Section 202, Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 3, Section 25(1)(b)(a), Section 5 - The court discussed the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution's reliance on it to establish the guilt of the accused. It highlighted the lack of direct evidence and the need for circumstances to exclusively point to the accused's guilt. The court emphasized the importance of thorough investigation and the need to establish the nexus of the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of acquittal was affirmed based on the insufficiency of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were accused of kidnapping and murdering three forest guards, demanding ransom, and burning the bodies to screen evidence. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstances to exclusively point to the accused's guilt and highlighted the lack of direct evidence. It also noted the importance of thorough investigation and establishing the nexus of the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court.
(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. The State appeals. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.144/2003 whereby an order of acquittal of the respondents/A-1 to A-9 was made in respect of the charges levelled against them. Two other accused originally shown as A-4 and A-8, died, and hence the charges against them stood abated. The charges framed by the trial Court against the accused are as follows: ACCUSED CHARGES A-2, A-5, A-6 & A-7 147 IPC A-1 & A-3 148 IPC A-1 to A-6 364(A) IPC A-1 to A-6 344 IPC A-1 to A-6 120(B) IPC A-1 to A-6 147 IPC (2 counts) A-1 & A-3 to A-6 148 IPC (2 counts) 149 r/w 302 IPC 201 r/w 34 IPC 202 IPC 202 IPC
A-1 to A-6
A-1 to A-6
A-7 & A-8
A-9
A-1 to A-3
3 r/w 25(1)(b)(a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959
A-9
3 r/w 25(1)(b)(a) & 5 r/w 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959
2. The case of the prosecution can be stated as follows:
(a) All the respondents were close associates of sandalwood trafficker Veerappan. The three deceased namely Abhimanyu (D1), Pazhani (D2) and Chinnapaiyan @ Mahadevan (D3) were working as Forest Guards in Hokenakal Range, Kuthirayan Beat. The said Veerappan and the respondents/accused indulged in hunting elephants. They kidnapped all the three Forest Guards on 25.4.1999, when they were on duty and kept them in their illegal custody. They also sent a letter through P.W.2 to the District Collector, Erode, examined as P.W.29, demanding a ransom of Rs.3 crores for releasing the said three Forest Guards. That apart, A-4 also spoke to the Collector through phone on 2.5.1999 in that regard. When P.W.29, the District Collector, negatived the demand, on 3.5.1999 at about 11.00 A.M., on the directions of A-1, A-8 asked all the three Forest Guards stand one after another. They were tied with ropes. A1 to A-3 stood around them with rifles. The respondents 4 to 7 were also standing around restraining them from moving about. On the directions of A-1, A-8 shot all the three Forest Guards with SB ML rifle and caused their death at the spot instantaneously. After committing the murder, in order to screen the evidence, they burnt all the three dead bodies.
(b) P.W.6, the wife of D3 Mahadevan and P.W.7, the wife of D2 Pazhani, reported to the higher-ups of the department that their husbands went to duty on 23.4.1999, but did not return. While the matter stood thus, P.W.2 and a few others met P.W.1, the Assistant Forest Ranger, and handed over four letters marked as Exs.P2 to P5, and also an audio cassette marked as M.O.1, to him and informed that those three guards were kidnapped by the associates of Veerappan, and they were under the illegal custody. P.W.1 after looking into the letters and hearing the audio cassette came to know that the associates of Veerappan have kidnapped and kept them in illegal custody. Then P.W.1 gave Ex.P1, the complaint, to P.W.31, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pennagaram, who on receipt of the same, made an endorsement and forwarded to P.W.32, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Police Station, for necessary action. P.W.32 in turn, registered a case in Crime No.317 of 1999 under Sections 363 and 368 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P41, was despatched to the Court.
(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR at about 11.50 A.M. on 28.4.1999, P.W.33, the Inspector of Police of Pennagaram Circle, took up investigation. He recovered the four letters and also the audio cassette marked as Exs.P2 to P5 and M.O.1 respectively, under Form 95. Then he proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P43. He enquired 101 witnesses and recorded their statements.
(d) Pursuant to the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, P.W.34, the Inspector of Police of Bommidi Circle, altered the case to Sections 147, 148, 363, 342, 385, 302, 201 IPC r/w 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act. On 12.7.1999 at about 8.00 A.M., he arrested the deceased accused Govindan in the presence
