Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2648
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. RAJESWARAN & T. MATHIVANAN, JJ.
Maria David Raj
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari
C.A. No. 215 of 2012
Decided on: 20-08-2014
For the Appellant:V. Gopinath Senior counsel for P. Andi Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Reasonable doubt on the inherent probabilities of the prosecution case led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 294(b), 506(ii), 302 - The court discussed the charges under Section 294(b), 506(ii) (two counts) and 302 of IPC. The appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as afore stated.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for various offenses including causing the death of the deceased by inflicting cut injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a motive for the occurrence and had gone to the house of the deceased to commit the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. The first information report was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the charges against the appellant were not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The court entertained a reasonable doubt on the inherent probabilities of the prosecution case and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: Inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, suspicious circumstances surrounding the first information report, and failure to establish charges against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court entertained a reasonable doubt on the inherent probabilities of the prosecution case and acquitted the appellant of all charges due to inconsistencies in evidence and failure to establish the charges.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.
1. This Memorandum of Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2012 and made in S.C.No.79 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Sessions Division, at Nagercoil convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC and seven years of rigorous imprisonment (two counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count and in default, to undergo two years of SI for each count for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four years.
2. PW.14 the Inspector of Police attached to Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District has laid a final report against the appellant/accused alleging that he had committed the offences punishable under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment (Amended Act) 2002 and under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) (2 counts) and 302 of IPC.
3. The learned Principal Session Judge at Kanyakumari Session Division, Nagercoil has framed four charges. In so far as the first charge under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment (Amended) Act 2002 is concerned, the appellant/accused has been acquitted as the prosecuting agency has not established the motive theory and in so far as the other three charges are concerned, the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as afore stated.
4. Conspectus of facts :-
(a) PW.1 Pushpalatha is the wife of the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar. PW.4 is their minor daughter. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. PW.5 – Jebastin is the brother of PW.1. They are all the residents of semantharaivilai. The appellant is also the resident of the same village. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 13.05.2009 at 6.30 P.M on the backyard of the house of PW.1 near their bath room.
(b) The case of the prosecution is that a few days before the occurrence, the appellant/accused, whenever happened to cross the house of PW.1, used to make some gesture with bad intention towards PW.1. This fact was informed to the deceased by PW.1 in the morning of 13.05.2009 and on hearing this, the deceased being the husband of PW.1, at about 12 noon had been to the house of the appellant/accused and warmed him severely. This was also intimated to PW.1 by the deceased saying that the appellant hereafter would not come on her way.
(c) On the same day, at about 6.30 P.M. when PW.1, her husband (deceased) PW.2, being the mother of the deceased and PW.4, were talking with each other on the backyard their house near the bath room, their three children including PW.4 Selvi Reculine Nisha and one Suresh Kumar, as well as the brother of the deceased were also present. Suddenly the appellant Maria David Raj came there with an Aakathi and asked the deceased about his authority of threatening him, on the instigation of his wife PW.1 by uttering the following words:-
“TAMIL”
(d) By saying so, he had aimed a cut with aakathi on the neck of the deceased. When the deceased bent down he had escaped from the attack. However that cut fell on his left eye brow and caused injury. After receiving the cut injury on the left eye brow, the deceased was trying to escape from the hands of the appellant. While so the appellant had cut on the back of his left knee. After receiving the cut injury, the deceased had fallen down in a spool of blood. When PW.1, PW.2 and her brother in law were trying to rescue the deceased, the appellant had severely threatned them with aruval saying that he would cut them also. Thereafter the appellant had fled away from the place of occurrence with the weapon.
(e) After completion of the occurrence, Suresh Kumar who is the brother of the deceased had brought a car and the deceased was taken to Franklin Hospital at 9.30 P.M. PW.7, doctor Franklin Gastro, who was on duty in the hospital had examined the injuries s
