Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. CHOCKALINGAM, R. MALA, JJ.
Pandi & Others
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police
Crl.A.(MD) No.9 of 2008
Decided On : 17-04-2009
Conspiracy - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 149, 402 and 398 r/w 149 - The judgment discusses the application and interpretation of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 149, 402 and 398 r/w 149. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a bank watchman during an attempted robbery. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and evidence to prove the charges against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of conclusive evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy and the charges under IPC Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 149, 402 and 398 r/w 149.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies. It also discussed the interpretation of conspiracy under criminal law.
Final Decision: The judgment of the lower court was set aside, and the accused/appellants were acquitted of all charges. The appellants in jail were directed to be released forthwith, and any paid fines were to be refunded to them. Bail bonds executed by the appellants were to be cancelled.
M. Chockalingam, J.
Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam dated 28.11.2007 made in S.C.No.163/2006 whereby the appellants 7 in number were found guilty for the offences under Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 149, 402 and 398 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. and each of them were awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay, six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 120(b) IPC; life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay, six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC; 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to pay, three months rigorous imprisonment; and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 398 r/w 149 IPC. The sentence was directed to run concurrently.
2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:
(i) PW.2 is the wife of Seenipandi, since deceased in the incident. He was employed as a watchman in a Co-operative Bank at Kadirnarasingapuram. PW.1 was working as its Secretary. While PWs.6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 were also working in different capacities in the bank. They had 342 sovereign gold jewels in the locker and out of the two locker keys, PW.1 and PW.11 had each key. The residential house of the deceased was situated just 100 metres away from the said bank.
(ii) On 15.5.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. Seenipandi after his dinner, proceeded to the bank. At about 12.30 p.m,(midnight), PW.2 came outside to feed cattle. At that time, she heard a noise break opening of the bank. Immediately, she rushed over there and found two persons standing inside the bank and three persons standing outside the bank and she found her husband in a pool of blood. PW.3 and PW.4 came over there and PW.4 informed to PW.12 and in turn, he informed to others.
(iii) Immediately, PW.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 and on the strength of the complaint Ex.P.1, PW.21 Head Constable registered a case in Crime No.77/2006 under Sections 302, 457, 511 IPC on 16.5.2006 at 2.00 a.m.,. F.I.R. Ex.P.22 was sent to the Court through Head Constable PW.19.
(iv) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, PW.23, Inspector of Police took up investigation on 16.5.2006 at 2.45 a.m., and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of witnesses. He prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.27 in the presence of V.A.O. and also prepared a rough Sketch Ex.P.28 and following the same, he recovered Material Objects available from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.29.
(v) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.10. Ex.P.3 was the post-mortem certificate issued by her wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ brain - due to injury No.1 about 1012 hours prior to autopsy.
(vi) Pending investigation, PW.23 Inspector of Police arrested the fourth accused in the presence of V.A.O PW.13 and the fourth accused gave a confessional statement and the admissible part of the confessional statements were marked as Exs.P.25 and P.30 and Material Objects were recovered. On 30.5.2006, A.2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai. On 31.5.2006 A.1 and A.3 were arrested in the presence of V.A.O PW.13. On 5.6.2006, A.2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and he was taken into police custody. Pursuant to the confessional statement of A.1, the other accused were arrested and remanded for judicial custody. A requisition was forwarded to conduct identification parade. Accordingly, PW.22, Judicial Magistrate, conducted identification parade in the Central Prison, Madurai. PW.2 and PW.17 were taken to identify the accused. PW.2 could not identify any one. PW.17 identi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
