Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 678
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. JAICHANDRAN & S. NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Katturaja & Another
Versus
State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District
Referred Trial (MD) No.1 of 2013 & Crl. Appeal (MD) No.19 of 2013
Decided On : 31-01-2013
For the Appellants:I. Subramanian, V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsels, M/s. K. Prabhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Shanmuga Velayutham, Public Prosecutor, Assisted by C. Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the duty to prevent miscarriage of justice and actively pursuing the truth to ensure justice.
Headnote:
Investigation - Criminal Procedure - [Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure] - The court ordered further investigation in a criminal case, highlighting flaws in the initial investigation and the need for justice. The court appointed an Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation and directed the police to provide necessary assistance. The case was listed for further hearing, and the court emphasized the importance of police presence and cooperation during trial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Four people, a man, a woman, and their two children, were found dead with multiple injuries in their house and outside. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, and the proceedings were submitted to the High Court for confirmation. During the hearing, the court found disturbing factors in the investigation and evidence presented before the lower Court, leading to doubts about the conviction. The police officers and investigators were directed to appear before the Court to address the deficiencies in the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court was dissatisfied with the investigation and found it difficult to confirm the conviction based on the available evidence. The Court emphasized the need for thorough investigation to collect legally admissible evidence and ensure justice for the victims' family. The Court expressed concerns about the public's confidence in the police force and highlighted the importance of efficient and unbiased investigation to maintain peace and tranquility.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the flaws in the investigation, doubts about the conviction, and the need for further investigation to uncover the truth and ensure justice for the victims' family.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it had the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the trial had not concluded and the referred trial was a continuation of the trial. The Court emphasized the duty to prevent miscarriage of justice and the importance of actively pursuing the truth to ensure justice. The Court also highlighted the need for police presence and cooperation during trial proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court ordered further investigation in the case, appointed an Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation, and directed the police to provide necessary assistance. The case was listed for further hearing, and the Court emphasized the importance of police presence and cooperation during trial proceedings.
S. Nagamuthu, J.
1. Four people – A man, a woman and their two children – lost their lives. The lifeless bodies, with multiple injuries, were strewned in their house and out side. This gruesome, dastardly and cowardly act of murders was executed by the perpetrators on 20.04.2007. This occurrence, sent shock waves through out the southern districts of this State. Nobody had seen the occurrence. Three people were named as suspected accused. Investigation went on. Finally, charge sheet was laid against two different persons. The learned II Additional & Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli convicted and sentenced them to
2. Having imposed the above conviction and sentence, the Trial Court has submitted the proceedings to this Court seeking confirmation as required under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That is how the Referred Trial (MD) No.1 of 2013 of before this Court, Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused have come up with Criminal Appeal (MD) No.19 of 2013.
3. When these matters were taken up for hearing on 30.01.2013, we went through the entire records thoroughly, Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the first appellant and Mr. V. Kathirvelu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second appellant advanced arguments assailing the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. Mr. S. Shanmuga Velayutham, the learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against both the accused under all charges beyond reasonable doubts and pleaded for confirmation of the death penalty.
4. During the course of arguments, we found a lot of disturbing factors in the investigation and in the evidence let in before the lower Court and thus, prima facie, we felt that it may be difficult for this Court to confirm the conviction. On 30.01.2013, when the matter was heard, neither the officers who investigated the case, nor any other responsible officer, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who is posted with the facts of the case was present before this Court to assist the learned Public Prosecutor. One Woman Inspector of Police was present along with the case diary. When we raised certain queries on certain important points, she expressed her inability to explain as she had no knowledge of any of the facts of the case.
5. Having gone through the records, we were shocked to find that though it is a very serious case where a husband, wife and their two children have been killed mercilessly in a brutal manner, the investigation had not been done thoroughly to bring on record legally acceptable evidence so as to ensure punishment for the real culprits. Therefore, we directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and the Officers who investigated the case to appear before this Court today. The matter was accordingly adjourned.
6. Today (31.01.2013), when the matters were taken up, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Mr. Suresh Kumar, and Mr. Murugesan, the officers who investigated the case were all present. When we asked the Deputy Inspector General of Police as well as the Superintendent of Police as to whether they had any occasion to visit the Court when the trial was conducted before the trial Court, they answered in the negative. However, the Superintendent of Police told the court that when the trial before the lower court was in progress, he had an occasion to go through the records and he himself was not satisfied with the investigation as there were a lot of flaws committed by the Investigators. He further stated that at that stage, since the trial was in progress, he was not in a position to take further steps for further investigation. When he was asked by this Court as to whether he sought for any legal opinion from the learned Public Prosecutor for further investigation, he answered in the negative. To
