Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5063
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Sundaramurthy
Versus
State, rep. by, Inspector of Police
Crl. A. No.337 of 2010
Decided On : 26-11-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Sankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused must explain incriminating circumstances within their knowledge, and failure to do so can lead to adverse inferences.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 392, 397, 302, 34, 201 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Sections 392, 397, 302, 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions were interpreted in the context of circumstantial evidence, recovery of material objects, and the principle of liability based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Karthik, went missing after leaving with the accused/appellant. His dead body was found in the accused/appellant's house, leading to charges under Sections 392, 397, 302, 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of material objects and the accused's failure to explain key circumstances. The court emphasized the principle that the accused must explain incriminating circumstances within their knowledge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, recovery of material objects, and the accused's failure to explain key circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to explain incriminating circumstances within their knowledge, the court can infer those circumstances against the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's findings and the accused's guilt.
JUDGMENT M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai passed in S.C. No.41 of 2009, whereby the accused/appellant stood charged, tried along with other accused shown as second accused for the offences under Sections 392 read with 397, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused/appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 392 read with 397, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Though the second accused participated in the trial till the examination of witnesses on the prosecution side, he absconded thereafter. A Non Bailable Warrant was issued, but he could not be secured. Under the circumstances, the case was split up and proceeded as against this appellant and trial was concluded and after following the procedural formalities, he was found guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-
(i) P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the sister and P.W.6 is the father of the deceased Karthik. The accused/appellant was his friend. The deceased joined the City Bank at T. Nagar Branch just two weeks prior to the occurrence as a Collection agent. P.W.8 Bank Manager has deposed that Karthik used to come for work at about 10 O Clock and used to go for collection and then returned at about 5 O clock.
(ii) On 24.4.2008, the deceased went for collection, but he did not come back. On the said date, P.W.6 father took his son Karthik as billion rider and left him at the bus stop where he left him in the company of the accused/appellant. P.W.6 has left from there. That evening since Karthik did not return till 7 O clock and P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 made a search. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pondy Bazaar Police station and informed the same. In turn, the Police Officials told that their son Karthik was missing from Aminjikarai and hence they should go there and give a complaint. Accordingly, they proceeded to Aminjikarai police Station and gave complaint Ex.P12 to P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint at about 9.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.245 of 2008 for "Man Missing"and the First Information Report in that regard is marked as Ex.P12.
(iii) While the matter stood thus, P.W.1, who is the President of that area, in which the house of the accused/appellant is situated, was informed by the people of that area at about 8 p.m. that a bad smell was emanated from the house of the accused/appellant, which is kept under lock. P.W.1, who went over there, ascertained the same and proceeded to Pondy Bazaar Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.21 Inspector of that Circle, on receipt of information, proceeded to the spot and broke open the lock and found the dead body of a youngster inside the house. He ascertained that it was the dead body of the deceased. Immediately, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 were informed. They came to the place of occurrence and ascertained that it was the deceased.
(iv) A complaint was given by P.W.1 and a case in Crime No.278 of 2008 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P
