Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2829
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU AND V.S.RAVI, JJ.
Muthalagu @ Muthalagan – Appellant
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No. 98 of 2011
Decided On : 07.09.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. Gopalakrishna Laskshmana Raju Senior Counsel
For Respondent: Mr. A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unexplained delays can create doubts in the case.
Headnote:
Delay in filing complaint - Section 302 IPC - [MOTIVE, EVIDENCE, DELAY] - The court analyzed the delay in filing the complaint, the motive for the occurrence, and the evidence presented by the prosecution. It highlighted the lack of explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence. The appellant appealed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, delay in filing the complaint, and lack of explanation for certain actions. As a result, the appellant was acquitted.
Issues: Delay in filing complaint, Witness testimonies, Medical evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unexplained delays can create doubts in the case.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted, and the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC were set aside.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.251 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 23.12.2010, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Alagumalai. P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 Mrs.Ponnammal is his sister and P.W.3 Murugan is the husband of P.W.2. The deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were all residing at Kurangupatti Village. The accused also belongs to the same village. The wife of the accused is one Mrs.Nagajothi. It is alleged that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the said Nagajothi. The accused reprimanded the deceased for the same. Six months prior to the occurrence, on account of the same, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. It is stated to be the motive for the present occurrence.
2.2 While so, on 12.11.2009, at about 2.00 p.m, P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the deceased had gone to an agricultural field for work. Thereafter, they were returning towards a shortcut route to their house. When they were coming together, the accused emerged and questioned the deceased as to why he was coming in the said route. By saying this, the accused dragged the deceased to his house. It is alleged that in front of his house, the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest and on his left thigh. Then, it is alleged that the accused had run away from the place of occurrence.
2.3 It is the further case that the deceased was immediately taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, at 4.30p.m on 12.11.2009. Intimation regarding admission was given to the Police. The deceased was admitted as an in-patient. He died at 06.15 p.m on 12.11.2009. The death intimation was also given to the Police Station by the hospital authorities. But, the police did not go over to the hospital to record any statement.
2.4 It is alleged that P.W.1 had gone to the Police Station and made a complaint at 11.00 p.m on 12.11.2009 at Vadipatti Police Station. P.W.7 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the said complaint, has registered a case in Crime No.709 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.9 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to the court. The records reveal that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9 reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 01.30 a.m on 13.11.2009. Then, he forwarded the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
2.5 P.W.,9 the then Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, took up the case for investigation. At 12' noon midnight, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and other witnesses. Then, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and the same witnesses. On 13.11.2009 at 8.00 a.m, he forwarded the body for post-mortem. P.W.8 Dr.Natarajan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 13.11.2009 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
i) An oblique stab injury 5 cms X 1 cm X peritoneal cavity deep noted on the front of upper part of middle of abdomen. On dissection the wound passes obliquely downwards and backwards piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and piercing the anterior wall of stomach measuring 4 cms X 1 cm X entering into stomach.
ii) An oblique stab injury 5 cms X 1 cm X 4 cms along the muscle plane on the back of upper part of right thigh.
iii) All the stab injuries are having regular margins, on endis pointed an other end is curved.
Ex.P.11 is the post-mortem certificate. He gave a final opinion t
