Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3137
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Kumar @ Kumaresan & Another
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police station
Criminal Appeal Nos.426 of 2009 & 512 of 2008
Decided on : 20-07-2012
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals and Acquittals
Act Referred
Headnote
IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 395, Section 394 - The judgment discusses the evidence and contradictions in the complaint and F.I.R., the identification of the accused, the delay in filing the complaint, and the seizure mahazar. The court acquitted the appellants A2 and A4 due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a robbery on a road where the accused restrained and assaulted the victims, snatching their belongings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in the evidence, delay in filing the complaint, and lack of proper identification of the accused. The court acquitted the appellants A2 and A4 due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Issues: Contradictions in evidence, delay in filing the complaint, identification of the accused, and seizure mahazar alterations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted the appellants A2 and A4 due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Sections 394 and 395 IPC was set aside. A2/Kumar @ Kumaresan and A4/Krishnan @ Muthupandi were acquitted from the charges under Sections 394 and 395 IPC. Bail bond, if any executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled, and fine amount, if any paid by the appellants, is ordered to be refunded to them.
For the Appellants:R. Marudhachalamurthy, I.C. Vasudevan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:C. Emalias, Government Advocate (crl.side).
1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.06.2008, made in S.C.No.165 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode., whereby the accused 1 to 4 were convicted for the offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment each.
2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the accused stating that on 23.01.2006, at 10.30 p.m., between Erode and Chennimalai road, near Sipcot Industrial estate, when P.W.1/Krishnamurthy and P.W.2/Sakthivel were proceeding in T.V.S. Excel Super bearing Registration No.TN33AP6307, at the time, the accused 1 to 4 along with one Dhanalakshmi @ Revathi, with an intention to rob them, wantonly restraining P.W.1 and P.W.2, snatched their jewels, Nokia mobile phone and also T.V.S. Excel super, the two wheeler and assaulted them with beer bottle and thereby, committed the offence under Sections 395, 394 and 395 r/w 397 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) On 23.01.2006, at 10.30 p.m., P.W.2/Sakthivel, who was riding the two wheeler and P.W.1/Krishnamurthy, who was the pillion rider, crossed Erode-Chennimalai road, near Sipcot Industrial Estate, at that time, one Dhanalakshmi @ Revathi/A1, stopped the vehicle and she came near them for asking something. So P.W.2 stopped the vehicle and suddenly, the said Dhanalakshmi shouted Babu, Kumar, Armugam, Muthupandi, who were arrayed as A2 and A5 respectively in the charge sheet and asked them to come there. The accused 2 to 5, who were hiding in the bush, came there and by rounding P.W.1 and P.W.2 demanded the things they possessed. Since P.W.1 and P.W.2 refused to produce the same, Babu/A2 assaulted P.W.1 with beer bottle and snatched M.O.1/Nokia mobile phone and M.O.2/one sovereign ring, M.O.3/T.V.S. Excel super from P.W.1 and Kumar/A3 snatched M.O.4/ring, M.O.5/Timex watch, M.O.6/Nokia cell phone, M.O.7/three sovereign chain from P.W.2. The accused assaulted both P.W.1 and P.W.2 and left the place. Because of sudden incident, P.W.1 and P.W.2 got astonished and standstill. Thereafter, they took one mini auto and admitted P.W.2/Sakthivel, who sustained grievous injury, in Erode Government Hospital and then P.W.1 intimated the same to his uncle namely, Arunachalam, who was examined as P.W.3, rushed to the hospital after receiving information and admitted P.W.1 in the hospital.
(ii)On 24.01.2006, at 0.45 hours, P.W.8/Ravindran, who treated P.W.2, gave Ex.P17 Accident Register Copy, in which, he stated that P.W.2 was alleged to have been assaulted by four unknown men with bottle and hands at 10.30 p.m., on 23.01.2006, near Sipcot, Chennimalai road. He examined P.W.2 and took x-ray. He gave Ex.P18 wound certificate, in which, the following external injuries were mentioned.
"Laceration 3 X 2 X 2 cm over right mastoid region;
Laceration 5 X 3 X 2 cm over middle of left forearm;
Laceration 2 X 2 X 2 cm, 2 inches distal to injury No.2;
Contusion, vertical 20 X 3 cm over left side of back; "
He opined that all the four injuries are simple in nature. On 24.01.2006, at 4.00 a.m., he treated P.W.1/Krishnamurthy and gave Ex.P19 Accident Register copy and Ex.P20 wound certificate, in which, the following external injuries were mentioned.
"(i) Contusion 10 X 4 cm left side of back;
(ii) Transverse abrasion, 2 in number, 10 X 1 cm and
6 X 1 cm over right side abdomen;"
Immediately, he intimated the incident to the concerned police.
(iii) On 24.01.2006, at 4.30 a.m., P.W.7/Murugesan, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police station, received information from the Erode Government Hospital and rushed to the hospital at 5.15 a.m. and examined P.W.1 and recorded his confession and received Ex.P1 complaint and registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2006 under Sections 394, 395
