Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 578
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Jaichandren and S. Nagamuthu, JJ.
State, rep by Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Tuticorin District
Versus
V. Chinnathambi and Others
Crl. A. (MD) No. 300 and 441 of 2006
Decided on : 28 January 2013
A. Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor and K. Vinayagam, for Appellant
V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for K. Prabhu, for Respondents
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code, Section 148, 324, 341, 302 read with 149 - The court acquitted all the accused based on the lack of credible eyewitness testimony, contradictions in the evidence, and doubts regarding the First Information Report. The court also considered the deceased's involvement in previous murder cases and the presence of other enemies as a probable theory.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of eleven accused in a murder case. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of family members of the deceased, who were considered highly interested witnesses. The accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, leading to the State filing a Criminal Appeal and the wife of the deceased filing a Criminal Revision Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were not credible, as they were highly interested and inimical towards the accused. The court also noted the lack of independent witnesses, contradictions in the evidence, doubts regarding the First Information Report, and the deceased's involvement in previous murder cases. The court held that the view taken by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused was the only reasonable view.
Issues: Credibility of eyewitness testimony, presence of independent witnesses, contradictions in the evidence, doubts regarding the First Information Report, and the deceased's involvement in previous murder cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credible eyewitness testimony, contradictions in the evidence, doubts regarding the First Information Report, and the deceased's involvement in previous murder cases. The court also considered the presence of other enemies as a probable theory for the murder.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Petition were dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed.
Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 300 of 2006 are the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in Crl. RC. (MD) No. 441 of 2006. They are the accused in S.C. No. 5 of 2001, on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. II, Tuticorin. The respondents 7 to 12 in Crl. RC. (MD). No. 441 of 2006 are the accused 6 to 12 in the said case. Thus, altogether, there were eleven accused in the said case. There were as many as five charges framed against the accused as detailed infra. By judgment dated 7.4.2006, the Trial Court acquitted all the eleven accused. Aggrieved over the same, the State has come up with Criminal Appeal (MD). No. 300 of 2006 challenging the acquittal of the accused Nos. 1 to 5 alone. The State has not preferred any appeal in respect of the rest of the accused 6 to 11. The petitioner in Crl. RC. (MD) No. 441 of 2006 is the wife of the deceased and she is also the first witness for the prosecution during trial. Challenging the acquittal of all the eleven accused, she has come up with Crl. RC. (MD). No. 441 of 2006. That is how, the above Criminal Appeal (MD). No. 300 of 2006 and Crl. RC. (MD). No. 441 of 2006 are now before this Court for disposal.
2. Since both these matters arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common judgment.
3. There were as many as five charges framed against the accused by the Trail Court. The first charge is against all the eleven accused under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; the second charge is against the fifth accused alone under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code; the third charge is against the accused 6 to 11 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code; the fourth charge is against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the fifth charge is against the accused 6 to 11 under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Sankarapandi. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. Twelve years prior to the occurrence, one S. Krishnakonar, S/o. Sundarakonar was murdered. The deceased – Sankarapandi and his brother – Narayanan, viz., the husband of P.W.2 were the accused in the said murder case. The said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, in the year 1996, in the local panchayat election, the said Narayanan contested. The deceased supported the said Narayanan. One Mr. Mookkakonar contested against the said Narayanan. Ultimately, the said Narayanan won the election. The accused belonged to the faction led by Mookkakonar. Because of the above two instances, the accused was inimical towards the deceased. This is projected as a motive for the occurrence.
4.1. On 12.4.2000, at about 8.45 p.m., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 had gone to the Mukkani Main Bazaar, taking the daughter of P.W.1 for treatment. They were actually proceeding towards the house of a doctor. They were coming from north towards south. When they were nearing a hotel, run by one Mr.Krishnamoopanar, they found the deceased and P.W.3 standing in front of the hotel talking to each other. On seeing the deceased, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 went near him and told him that P.W.1’s daughter was unwell. At that time, since the then Hon’ble Chief Minister was about to make a visit in the said area, there were lot of tube lights set up on the side of the road, and thus, there was enough light to witness the occurrence.
4.2. Suddenly, from inside the hotel of the said Krishnamoopanar, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 ran out towards the deceased. The fifth accused – M. Manthiram was in possession of a knife and the others were armed with sickles. On nearing the deceased, the first accused attempted to cut the deceased on his neck. The deceased warded off the same by his left hand. The cut fell on the left wris
