Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
Leninkumar (Died) & Others – Appellants
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondents
Crl. A (MD) No. 89 of 2007
Decided On : 08-06-2015
IPC - Criminal Law - 302, 307, 324 - The judgment discusses the charges framed against the accused, the conviction and sentencing by the trial court, the prosecution's case, the defense's arguments, and the court's analysis leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased's family and the accused had a history of enmity. On the day of the incident, a quarrel ensued between the parties, leading to the accused attacking the deceased and other family members, resulting in injuries and the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence to be highly improbable and unreliable, citing lack of independent witnesses, dramatic narration of the events, and lack of corroboration from medical evidence. The court concluded that it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence and sustained the conviction, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and the dramatic narration of the events by the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for close scrutiny of partisan witnesses' evidence, the improbability of the prosecution's narration of events, and the lack of corroboration from medical evidence, leading to the decision to acquit the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused were set aside, leading to their acquittal.
1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.116 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. There were as many as 8 charges framed against the appellants/accused as detailed below. Charge Nos. Against Offence U/s.
| Charge Nos. | Against | Offence U/s. |
| 1 | A1 | 302 IPC |
| 2 | A2 to A4 | 302 r/w 34 IPC |
| 3 | A3 | 307 IPC |
| 4 | A1, A2 & A4 | 307 r/w 34 IPC |
| 5 | A2 | 307 IPC |
| 6 | A1, A3 & A4 | 307 r/w 34 IPC |
| 7 | A4 | 324 IPC |
| 8 | A2 | 324 IPC |
By judgment dated 13.02.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as follows;
| Accused | Conviction U/s. | Sentence |
| A1 | 304(ii) IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
| A2 to A4 | 304(ii) r/w 34 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. |
| A2 | 324 IPC (2 counts) | Rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count A2 324 r/w 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year |
| A1 | 324 r/w 34 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year |
| A3 | 324 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year |
| A4 | 324 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year |
| A4 | 324 r/w 34 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year |
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Veeramalai. PW1 is his son; PW2 is his daughter; PW3 is his grandson; PW4 is his another daughter; PW5 is his wife; PW7 is his daughter-in-law; PW8 is his another son; PW9 is his grandson and PW10 is his neighbour. They were all residing at Yelunoorrumangalam Village. PW2 – Mrs. Rasammal was residing on the west of the house of A3 - Mr. Durai. Mrs. Rasammal used to leave garbage just near the house of the 3rd accused. This was objected to by A3. He even initiated proceedings for nuisance before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer had held enquiry some time before the occurrence. The house of PW1 was set on fire. There was a case against some of the accused pending before the Court in connection the same. Because of these incidents, there developed enmity between the two families. PW6 - Mr. Ponnar (turned hostile) is the uncle of A3. PW6 was closely moving with the family of the prosecution party. This was objected to by A1 & A2, who are the sons of A3 and his wife is A4.
(b) On 30.12.2004 at about 7.30 a.m., according to the prosecution case, PW1, along with PW6, after taking tea in a nearby tea stall, were returning to their house. This was noticed by these accused. They came to the road and questioned PW6 as to why he had close proximity with PW1. PW1 questioned the same. This developed into a quarrel. The accused then took out wooden logs in their hands. The deceased Veeramalai viz., the father of PW1, came to the spot and questioned the accused. Immediately the accused 2, 3 & 4 caught hold the deceased and the first accused attacked him on his head. On receiving a single blow on the head, he fell down. Then, PW3 came to the spot. Immediately, the accused 1, 2 & 4 caught him hold and the 3rd accused attacked him on his head with wooden log. There was no more blow caused on him. Then, PW5 - Mrs. Maruthambal came to the spot. The second accused attacked him with wooden log on her hip, when the others caught her hold. With that single blow, she fell down. Then, PWs.4, 6 and 2 rushed to the place of occurrence. They attacked them also with wooden logs. Then, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. PW1 took the injured to the hospital, but the Doctor declared the deceased dead.
(c) On 30.12.2004 at 9.00 a.m. when PW15, the then Sub Inspector of Police was on duty, PW1 appeared before him and presented a written complaint (Ex.P1). Based on the same, he registered a case under Section 341, 307
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
