Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3178
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Bala @ Balasubramani
Versus
State rep. By The Station House officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station
Crl. A. No. 1005 of 2005
Decided on : 23-07-2012
For the Appellant:K. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J. Kumaran, Govt. Advocate.
The principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies without independent evidence.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault - Section 323 - Summary: The court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 323 of IPC due to lack of reliable eyewitness evidence and failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the injuries resulting in death. The court highlighted the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses and the lack of independent evidence to establish the accused's guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for assaulting and causing head injury to the deceased, resulting in his death. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and their evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of independent evidence to prove the accused's involvement in causing the injuries.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimonies, sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies in the absence of independent evidence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 323 of IPC, set aside the conviction, and ordered the refund of the fine amount paid by the accused.
1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2005, made in S.C.No.38 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry, whereby, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC in terms of Section 235 (i) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2. The respondent Police filed a charge sheet stating that on 29.06.2002 at about 16 hours at Big Market, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pondicherry, due to wordy quarrel, the accused assaulted one Velu and pushed him down and caused head injury, which resulted in his death and thereby, committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of evidence let in by the persecution witnesses, is as follows:
(i) P.W.1 – Rani is the sister of the deceased Velu. P.W.4 – Kala is the wife of the deceased Velu. On the fateful day, i.e. 29.06.2002 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was entering into the Big Market to purchase vegetables, she saw her deceased brother asking the accused to give money and that the accused saying that he had no money, fisted the deceased on his mouth and pushed him down, due to which, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained bleeding injury on the occipital region of the head and that she immediately rushed from the occurrence spot to inform P.W.4, wife of the deceased, about the incident. P.W.2-Ravindran and P.W.3-Rathinavel are eyewitnesses, who had seen the incident that the deceased fell down near Balaji Hotel. Then, the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, where, he died on the very next day. P.W.1-Rani went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1-Complaint, which was received by P.W.9-Ragunayagam, Sub-Inspector of Police, on 30.06.2002 at about 9.00 a.m.
(ii) On receiving the complaint, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime No.180 of 2002 against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. On the same day, at 9.00 a.m. he prepared printed FIR, i.e. Ex.P9. Thereafter, he took up the matter for investigation and went to the place of occurrence at 9.35 p.m., where he prepared observation Mahazar and drew Ex.P10-Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses, i.e. Durai and P.W.7-Mohan. At about 10.30 a.m., he went to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Velu, in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P2-inquest report. He seized M.O.1-Lungi under Ex.P11-Seizure Mahazar and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing inquest, he sent a letter for post-mortem and examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, at 20.30 hrs., he arrested the accused at Big Market and recorded his confession statement at 21.30 hrs. in the presence of witnesses, viz., Durai, Mohan and Selvaraj. On 01.07.2002, the accused was sent to judicial custoday. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis and the report was marked as Ex.P4, which shows that at the time of incident, the deceased consumed alcohol. On 20.01.2003, P.W.9 examined P.W.6-Dr.Subbiah, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P3-Post-mortem certificate and recorded his statement. On 05.02.2003, he also took steps to take photograph through P.W.8-Kannan and the photographs were marked as Ex.P7 and negatives were marked as Ex.P8. After concluding investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge placed the incriminating evidence against the accused, but, the same was denied by him. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved agains
