Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4867
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
P. Ramesh
Versus
State by: Inspector of Police, Chennai
CRL.A.No.261 of 2010
Decided On : 10-11-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for A.N. Thambidurai, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on direct evidence to establish guilt under Sec.302 of the IPC, despite challenges to the timing of events and the creation of the FIR.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Sec.302, Sec.380 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented under Sec.302 and Sec.380 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions of Sec.302 were interpreted to establish the guilt of the accused, while the evidence under Sec.380 was not found sufficient to support the charge. The court's decision was influenced by the direct evidence presented under Sec.302, which led to the conviction of the accused for murder.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murder under Sec.302 and theft under Sec.380 of the IPC. The deceased, wife of P.W.1, was found dead in her house, and the accused was seen with a weapon at the scene. The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses, while the defense raised doubts about the timing of the events and the creation of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of murder under Sec.302 based on the direct evidence presented by witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, who saw the accused at the scene with the weapon. The court did not find sufficient evidence to support the charge under Sec.380 and acquitted the accused of that charge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of the events, the creation of the FIR, and the credibility of the witnesses' testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the direct evidence of witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 to establish the guilt of the accused under Sec.302. The delay in the creation of the FIR was not considered sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, which found the accused guilty of murder under Sec.302 and acquitted him of the charge under Sec.380.
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, made in S.C.No.293 of 2009 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC, tried, found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence, while he was acquitted of the other charge under Sec.380 IPC.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Chennai working in a private company. The deceased Priya @ Anuradha was his wife, and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the children of P.W.1. P.W.1 along with his wife and children was having his own residence at Kavangarai. A grocery shop was situated in front of the house. Young boys used to play carrom in front of the shop. One Mahesh, the brother of the accused, and his friends used to play carrom there. By that, Mahesh developed friendship with P.W.3, and on occasions, he used to meet them in the house. Utilising the same, he developed intimacy with the deceased Priya @ Anuradha, the wife of P.W.1, and it came to the knowledge of P.W.1. P.W.1 then changed his residence to Door No.17/182, 2nd Cross Street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 49, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. But, Mahesh did not stop his association with her, and he used to go there. It came to the knowledge of P.W.1. Then he informed the accused, who is the elder brother of Mahesh, to advise his brother. On an earlier occasion, the accused replied that it would be better that P.W.1 could advise his wife, the deceased, and if not, he should take necessary action thereon.
(b) On 28.3.2008 at about 1.30 P.M., P.Ws.2 and 3 were about to go for the examination. At that time, they found the accused/appellant coming in a Red Colour Splendor Hero Honda motorcycle, parking the vehicle and getting entry into the house. P.Ws.2 and 3 after seeing him, told him bye and went to the school. When they came at about 4.30 P.M., they found the house locked. Then they knocked for some time, but it was not opened. Thereafter, they called P.W.4, a neighbour, and after knocking the door which was of no avail, they went to the backyard and got inside when they found the window of the bedroom was not closed. Immediately, they also opened the door and found the accused/appellant standing with the bloodstained arivalmanai, marked as M.O.23, and found Priya in a pool of blood. When they shouted, P.W.12 also came over there. It was actually witnessed by P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and others. Immediately, the accused/appellant who was standing with the arivalmanai, intimidated them that the same thing would happen to them also. Then he fled away from the place of occurrence.
(c) P.W.12 informed to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 reached the house at about 5.15 P.M., and he, after witnessing the dead body of his wife, proceeded to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P1, the report, to P.W.21, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, and on the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.155/2008 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P21, was despatched to the Court.
(d) P.W.21 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar and also a rough sketch, marked as Exs.P22 and P23 respectively. He also recovered bloodstained cement flooring and also other material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report marked as Ex.P25. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.
(e) P.W.20, the Tutor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Priya and has issued a postmortem certi
