SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 464

Madras High Court
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, P. DEVADASS, JJ.
Manickam & Another
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal (MD) No.74 of 2011
Decided on : 31-01-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:P. Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.S. Durai Pandian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required to establish guilt 'beyond all reasonable doubts' and the application of Section 304 (ii) IPC in determining the appropriate conviction and sentencing.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Murder - Sections 294(b), 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused's arguments regarding inconsistencies in the evidence and delay in lodging the FIR were dismissed. The court found the accused guilty under Section 304 (ii) IPC and sentenced Accused No.1 to 6 years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of Accused No.2 was set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over a vacant site, leading to a fatal altercation resulting in the death of Balasubramanian. The prosecution presented evidence of the altercation and the fatal injury sustained by the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the prosecution's evidence to be consistent and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The court dismissed the accused's arguments regarding inconsistencies in the evidence and delay in lodging the FIR.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the consistency of the evidence, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the accused's responsibility for the death of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, and the accused's arguments regarding inconsistencies in the evidence and delay in lodging the FIR were not substantial. The court also applied Section 304 (ii) IPC to convict Accused No.1 and set aside the conviction of Accused No.2.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed in part, with the conviction of Accused No.2 set aside. Accused No.1 was convicted under Section 304 (ii) IPC and sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment.

Judgment :-

P.DEVADASS,J.

1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.93 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur Sessions Division at Karur are the appellants before us. For convenience sake, let us call them as Accused No.1 and 2.

2. On 29.11.2008, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced them as under:-

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

(i). The spouses Manickam (A.1) and Mariyayee (A.2) and Balasubramanian (deceased) belong to Chinnareddypatti in Kulithalai Taluk in Karur District. They have dispute with regard to a vacant site. On 29.6.2007, at about 11 p.m, in front of A.1's house, wordy altercation took place between them in placing a thatched fence near the vacant site. A.2 abused and caught hold of Balasubramanian, while A.1 brought a billhook (MO.1) from his house and cut him on his legs. He bled profusely. PWs.1 to 3 Senthil Kumar, Kanagaraj and Annadurai witnessed the occurrence. PW.1 informed this to P.W.4 Sivamani, wife of Balasubramanian. They took the injured to the Government Hospital, Kulithalai. The Doctor pronounced him dead already. On 30.6.2007, at about, 6 a.m. at the Thogamalai Police Station, PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint to PW.9 Anbazhagan, Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2007 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 341 and 302 IPC. At about 8 a.m., PW.7 Head Constable Eswaran handed over the Express FIR (Ex.P.8) to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai.

(ii). On receipt of a copy of F.I.R., P.W.10 Inspector Sampath Kumar, took up his investigation. At the scene place, in the presence of PW.5 Ramalingam, V.A.O and his Assistant Palaniyandi he prepared Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar and drew Ex.P.9 Rough Sketch. At the mortuary, in the said Hospital, in the presence of Panchayathars, P.W.10 held inquest over the dead body (Ex.P.10 Inquest Report). On his requisition (Ex.P.5), at about 11.15 a.m., PW.6 Dr.Pon Marudamuthu conducted post-mortem on the dead body. He noticed (i) a cut injury, curved in shape of size 18 x 5 x 8 cm deep below the right knee, starts on the lateral aspect of the leg passes on the back of the leg and upto medial aspect of the leg and (ii) all the muscles back of the leg and major blood vessels popliteal artery and vein are cut, and tibia, fibula bone are visible through the injury. At the scene village, PW.10 examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. At about 8 p.m., on the Kulithalai -Manapparai Main Road, near Parapatti, he arrested A.1 and A.2. In the presence of PW.5 and his Assistant, he recorded confessional statement (Ex.P.3) of A.1. In pursuance of that, in Chinnareddypatti, from Nagaraja's land, A.1 produced MO.1 bill-hook. In the presence of the said Revenue staff, PW.10 seized it under Ex.P.4 Mahazar. PW.10 sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody. PW.6 opined that the said injury was possible by a weapon like MO.1 bill-hook. Concluding his investigation, PW.10 filed the Final Report for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.

4. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC against A.1 and under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC as against A.2.

5. To prove the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, marked Exs.P.1 to 10 and exhibited MOs.1 to 5.

6. When the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, they denied their complicity in this case.

7. The accused have examined DWs.1 and 2 and marked Ex.D1. According to DW.1, Dr.Muthuraman, on 1.10.2006, at the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, he had treated Balasubramanian for injuries in his chin, right knee and right leg, which were sustained by him in a road accident and he issued him Ex.D.1 Accident Register.

8. According to DW.2, Mookkan, Village Accountant, Chinnareddypatti, on the occurrence day, at about 8 p.m., in front of accused's house, there were shoutings, certain persons brought a thatched hut; it fell on the legs










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top