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) 3016

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. RAJESWARAN & T. MATHIVANAN, JJ.
Thanappan @ Thanumalayaperumal
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Manavalakkurichi Police Station, Kanniyakumari District
C.A(MD).No. 6 of 2007
Decided on: 08-09-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T. Mohan, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence, the fit state of mind of the deceased for recording statements, and the need for consistency in witness testimonies in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

Headnote:

IPC - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Summary: The court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The case involved a dispute between the accused and the deceased, leading to a fatal attack by the accused using a spade handle. The court analyzed contradictory statements, lack of corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, ultimately acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a fatal attack on the deceased by the accused using a spade handle following a dispute between them. The deceased sustained injuries and later died in the hospital.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Issues: The key issues included contradictory statements, lack of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the fit state of mind of the deceased at the time of recording statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, the fit state of mind of the deceased for recording statements, and the need for consistency in witness testimonies.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Judgment :

S. Rajeswaran, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.147 of 2002 and he was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-was also imposed and in default of payment of fine amount, one year Rigorous Imprisonment was also ordered by an order dated 18.11.2004.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased and the accused are neighbours. One year prior to occurrence, the pet dog of the deceased has taken some vessels from the accused's house and damaged the same. This gave room for an enmity between them. Apart from the same, the deceased had arranged for a marriage of one Ganapathy with one Suseela. After the marriage, the said Ganapathy had become mentally ill and therefore Ganapathy's wife Suseela had grudges against the deceased on this score and also used to abuse him.

3. On 30.08.2001, at about 4.00 p.m., Suseela was abusing the deceased as usual and the same was objected to by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. At that time, the deceased came to that place and condemned Suseela. On the same day, Suseela had informed this incident to the accused and both went to the house of P.W.2 and complained against the deceased at about 9.00 p.m. The deceased had also gone to P.W.2's house at that time for the purpose of getting the ration card. P.W.2, a Council Member, had questioned the deceased about the incident and the accused quarrelled with the deceased. P.W.2 pacified both of them and sent them to their respective houses. When the deceased left P.W.2's house, the accused made a comment that a "drunkard" was going. The deceased questioned the accused and on account of that, there was again a wordy quarrel between them. The accused then had taken a Spade Handle, which was lying there and attacked the deceased at the right side and left side of the head.P.W.2, Palpandi, son of Vadivel and P.W.1 came to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound. The accused intimidated them with the Spade Handle and ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2/Palpandi, son of Vadivel arranged a car, belonging to P.W.6 and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil. P.W.7/the Doctor at the Government Hospital, Nagercoil admitted the deceased as an in-patient on 30.08.2001 at about 11.25 p.m. and registered in the Accident Register/Ex.P9. P.W.7 had noted in the Accident Register/Ex.P9, two lascerated injuries, one on the centre of scalp and the other on the side of the neck. He was informed by the deceased that he was beaten by known persons with a stick on 30.08.2001 at 9.30 p.m. He also recorded the presence of alcohol smell in the breath of the deceased.

4. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manavalankuruchi Police Station received the intimation from the Government Hospital, Nagercoil through the Kottar Out Police Station on 31.08.2001 and went to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil around 9.30 a.m. and recorded the statement of the deceased in Ex.p1 and registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.444/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC. The statement of the deceased was also attested by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and the statement is marked as Ex.P1. The printed FIR is marked as Ex.p17.

5. P.W.11 took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence around 11.30 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P2 as well as a rough sketch/Ex.P18, in the presence of P.W.3 and one Thangasamy. He also recovered the earth with blood and without blood/MOs' 3 and 4 respectively, in the presence of the above witnesses, in the Mahazar/Ex.P19. He recorded the statement of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the deceased. The statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P20. He also recovered the blood stained shirt of the deceased/MO1 and sent the same along with the other MOs to the Court in Form No.95.














































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