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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 253

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. RAJESWARAN & P.N. PRAKASH, JJ.

R. Murugesan & Another
Versus
State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station
Criminal Appeal Nos. 393 & 396 of 2012
Decided on: 05-02-2014

Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants :V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for R. John Sathyan, Sankara Subbu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: V.M.R. Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor

The judgment underscores the significance of substantive evidence, the procedure for proving statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the need for corroborative evidence to support witness testimonies.

Headnote:

IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 341, 302, 394 r/w 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence and legal provisions related to the charges against the accused under Sections 341, 302, 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlights the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the importance of substantive evidence, and the legal principles related to the admissibility and use of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The accused were tried and convicted for offences under Sections 341, 302, 394 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies and evidence related to the alleged incident involving the deceased and the accused. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial court.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the use of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the lack of proof regarding the ownership of the motorcycle involved in the case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the admissibility and use of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the proof of ownership of the motorcycle involved in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of substantive evidence, the procedure for proving statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the need for corroborative evidence to support witness testimonies. The court also highlighted the significance of establishing ownership of material objects involved in the case.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, acquitted them of all charges, and directed their release unless their presence was required in connection with any other case.

JUDGMENT

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. The accused 1 and 2 who were tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 302, 394 r/w 34 IPC by the Additional District & Sessions Court- cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Salem in S.C.No.215/2008 on 28.03.2012, are the appellants before us.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.03.2008 at around 4.00 p.m. when Dhanakodi [deceased] was returning from his sister Mallika's [P.W.1] house, he was wrongfully restrained by the appellants and A1 attacked him with a cricket stump on his head and both the appellants took away his motor cycle TVS Max 100 and went away.

(a) According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by Sundaramurthy [P.W.3] and Thangam [P.W.4] and that they chased the accused in their motor cycle upto a certain distance. Thereafter, they both returned to the place of occurrence and when they made enquiries with the local people, they were told that the injured person was carried away to the hospital by his relatives. They went back to their house. Selvam [P.W.2], a passer by, found a crowd at the place of occurrence and when he made enquiries, he learnt that the injured person was one Dhanakodi. He volunteered to elicit information from Dhanakodi about his residence and contacted Dhanakodi's sister, Mallika [P.W.1], who came to the place of occurrence soon. Thereafter, Mallika [P.W.1] and Selvam [P.W.2] took Dhanakodi in an omnivan to Naveen Nursing Home where Dr.Nandini [P.W.11] gave first aid around 5.00 p.m. Dhanakodi was conscious at that time. When P.W.11 found that he had serious head injuries, she referred him to the Salem Government Hospital, for further treatment. Dhanakodi was taken by Mallika [P.W.1] and Selvam [P.W.2] to Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem, where Dr.Sreedhar [P.W.14] admitted Dhanakodi and gave him treatment. The copy of the Accident Register of Sri Gokulam Hospital was marked as Ex.P.23. Dhanakodi was found to be unconscious and it is stated in the Accident Report [Ex.P23] that, he was brought by Selvam [P.W.2]. It is further stated in Ex.P23 that, "patient is alleged to have sustained head injuries due to RTA [Road Traffic Accident] while he was riding a two wheeler hit by another two wheeler opposite SISCOL, Nangavalli Road, Mecheri on 20.03.2008 at around 3.30 p.m." He was admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital on 20.03.2008 at 6.40 p.m. Intimation was sent by Sri Gokulam Hospital to the jurisdictional police on 21.03.2008 at around 11.15 a.m.

(b) Thereupon, Arjunan, Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.13] went to Sri Gokulam Hospital at around 12.15 noon and recorded the statement of Mallika [P.W.1], which is the complaint [Ex.P21] in this case. Ex.P21 contains the motor cycle make number and colour. He obtained that complaint and registered a case in Mecheri Police Station Cr.No.169/2008 for offence under Section 307 IPC r/w 394 IPC on 21.03.2008 at 2.30 p.m. The printed copy of the FIR is Ex.P22. From the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate it is evident that the complaint and the FIR reached the Magistrate at 6.45 p.m. on 21.03.2008. Investigation was taken over by Muniappan [P.W.16] Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses Sundaramurthy and Sudhakar, he prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch [Ex.P27]. The observation Mahazar was not marked in the Court. The Inspector of Police [P.W.16] further examined other witnesses and on 22.03.2008 at around 7.00 a.m. he apprehended both the accused while he was doing vehicle check near the railway gate. According to the prosecution, the appellants were coming by the TVS MAXI vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 34B 9844. The Inspector of Police, [P.W.16] examined the accused in the presence of one Selvaraj [P.W.5] and recorded his confession statement. Thereupon, he seized the motor cycle [M.O.2] and a coca cola water bottled [M.O17] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P2] in the presence of Selvaraj [P.W.5]. Based on the disclosure statement of the acc










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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