Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JAICHANDREN AND S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
A.Rajiv Gandhi - Appellant
Vs.
State by the Inspector of Police Bhuvanagiri Police Station Cuddalore - Respondent
CRL.A.No.235/2012
Decided On : 05.02.2016
Eyewitness Testimony - Murder - IPC 302 - Summary: The court acquitted the appellant of the charge of murder under IPC 302 based on the lack of credibility of the eyewitness testimony. The court found discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts and concluded that the appellant was entitled to acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased based on the prosecution's case that the appellant and two others were involved in a physical altercation with the deceased, resulting in his death. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence and testified against the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the eyewitness testimony, including inconsistencies in their accounts and lack of corroboration with the medical evidence. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to acquittal based on the lack of credibility of the eyewitness testimony.
Issues: The key issue was the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and its consistency with the medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credibility of the eyewitness testimony, as it did not align with the medical evidence and contained inconsistencies.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges and the conviction and sentence imposed on him were set aside.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant is the first accused in SC.No.425/2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore. Including the appellant, there were three accused. They stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and the Trial Court, acquitted A2 and A3 from the above charge and convicted the appellant alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 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:-
[a] The deceased Kaliyamoorthy was a resident of Thambikunallanpattinam. A1 and A2 are brothers and A3 is the maternal uncle's son of A1 and A2. On 16.08.2007, at about 11.30 a.m., it was alleged that A1 attempted to commit theft which was noticed by the deceased Kaliyamoorthy. The deceased reprimanded A1. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. It is alleged further that on 18.08.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. when the deceased was at his house, all the accused came to the house and challenged the authority of the deceased to scold A1 on the previous occasion, in connection with the earlier occurrence. This resulted in a wordy altercation. In the said quarrel, it is stated that A1 pushed the deceased on the floor and A2 and A3 stamped him. Then, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. The deceased was taken to Raja Muthaiah Medical College Hospital at Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram. At about 10.10 p.m., on the same day, Dr.Sivakannappan [P.W.10] who examined him, found him dead. He recorded the same in the Accident Register [Ex.P.10] and forwarded the body to Mortuary. Thereafter, he informed the police about the same.
[b] P.W.1 is the brother's son of the deceased. After having seen the occurrence, according to him, he also accompanied the deceased to the hospital and after the doctor informed him that the deceased was no more, he went to Bhuvanagiri Police Station and made a complaint under Ex.P.1.
[c] P.W.14, the then Sub Inspector of Police of Bhuvanagiri Police Station, on receiving the said complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.158/2007 for the offence u/s.302 IPC against all the three accused. Ex.P.14 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, for investigation.
[d] P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police attached to Bhuvanagiri Police Station took up the investigation ; proceeded to the scene of occurrence ; prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and also prepared a Rough Sketch [Ex.P.15]. He went to the hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P.16 is the Inquest Report. He then sent the dead body for postmortem.
[e] P.W.12, Dr.Raman, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 19.08.2007 at 10.05 a.m. He found that there were no external injuries on the body of the deceased and on opening the skull, he found 15 ml of clotting of blood on the occipital region. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock. Ex.P.13 is the Postmortem Certificate.
[f] Continuing the investigation, P.W.15, came to know that all the three accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur on 04.09.2007. He took police custody of the accused and examined them. The accused came forward to give independent, voluntary confession statements, which were marked as Exs.P.6 to P.8. On 08.09.2007, the accused were sent for judicial remand. After examining few more witnesses and on completion of the investigation, he laid the charge-sheet against the accused.
[g] Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charge against the accused persons as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The acc
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
