Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4229
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
A. SELVAM & V.S. RAVI, JJ.
Lakshmanan
Versus
The State through The Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal (MD)No. 271 of 2014
Decided on : 25-11-2014
For the Appellant:R.M. Sivakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Mere recovery of material objects is not sufficient to invite conviction and sentence against a particular accused, especially when there is a lack of evidence of the accused and deceased seen together prior to the occurrence.
Headnote:
Recovery - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 392
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder and robbery of the deceased based on alleged recovery of material objects. The prosecution's case rested on the recovery of material objects and lack of evidence of the accused and deceased seen together prior to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case lacked evidence of the accused and deceased seen together prior to the occurrence. The court cited a legal precedent stating that mere recovery of material objects is not sufficient to invite conviction and sentence against a particular accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence based on the alleged recovery of material objects and the lack of evidence of the accused and deceased seen together prior to the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that mere recovery of material objects is not sufficient to invite conviction and sentence against a particular accused, especially when there is a lack of evidence of the accused and deceased seen together prior to the occurrence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellant/accused was acquitted.
A. Selvam, J.
1. The convictions and sentences dated 25.02.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 by the District and Sessions Court, Karur are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Pandiyammal is the wife of one Subramanian. The accused with the intention to rob her jewels has contacted her over cellphone and accordingly the deceased has followed the accused and near Thelungappatti graveyard in a land bearing Survey No.45/1A, the accused has had coition with the deceased and jugulated her by using her saree and due to his overtacts she has passed away and thereafter robbed her jewels worth of Rs.10,000/-. After occurrence, the concerned Village Administrative Officer viz., P.W.1 has given a complaint to P.W.15, Special Sub Inspector of Police and the same has been registered in Crime No.300 of 2011. The complaint given by P.W.1 has been marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the Investigating Officers viz., P.Ws.21 and 22 have conducted investigation and after completing the same laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Kulithalai and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2012.
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai after perusing the relevant records has come to a conclusion that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karur Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013.
4. The trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed first charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and second charge against him under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.s.1 to 22 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 9 have been marked.
6. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.
7. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-with usual default clause. The accused has also been found guilty under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-with usual default clause. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant.
8. The sum and substance of the case putforth on the side of the prosecution is that the deceased Pandiyammal is the wife of one Subramanian, who has been examined as P.W.4. The accused with intention to rob her gold jewels has contacted her over cellphone and directed her to come to a particular place and accordingly she has come and met the accused and subsequently both of them have gone to the place of occurrence, wherein the accused has had sexual intercourse with the deceased and thereafter by using her saree the accused has jugulated her and subsequently he robbed all the jewels of the deceased. Under the said circumstances the accused is said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has contended that in the instant case no eye witness is available to the effect that both the accused and deceased are seen together prior to occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged recovery of some mate
