SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN AND S.NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Narayanaswamy @ Narayanan –Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.825 of 2011 1, 18, 46, 52, 59, 73, 77, 108 and 169 of 2012
Decided On : 30-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.John Sathyan Mr. S. Madhusudhanan Mr. V. Bharathidasan Mr. P. Pandiyaraj Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 309 and 313 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 147,452,302, 506 and 148 - Accident register - Knives and other weapons - Appeal Against Conviction - Accused owned a shop building at Street North Road was in occupation of said building as a tenant and he was running a shop in same. P.W.1s brother was also a tenant under A1 of adjoining portion in same building - He was also running a shop in that portion - Both shops were facing towards North Road - On back of these portions where P.W.1 and his brother were running shops a dance hall was situated in same building - A1 was a Dance Director in film industry - A reply notice refusing to vacate was issued by his brother - There was a dispute in respect of that also - After two years again A1 wanted P.W.1 and his brother-in-law to vacate building and handover possession to him. P.W.1 and his brother in law refused to hand over possession of shop - Held, It further states that where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or party or his pleader though present in Court is not ready to examine or cross-examine witness Court may if thinks fit record statement of witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with examination-in-chief or cross examination of witness as case may be - But in instant case records reveal that no reason whatsoever was recorded as to why case was adjourned for several years and as to why the trial court had not conducted trial of case on day to day basis and as to why accused were given a free hand to recall any witness after any number of years on a petition at the whims and fancies of accused to harass prosecution witnesses by dragging them to court repeatedly - Having dragged on proceedings for several years a strange argument has also been advanced before this court to take advantage of discrepancies which were result of fading memory of witnesses - Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGEMENT :

S. NAGAMUTHU. J.

1. The appellants are Accused Nos.2 to 12 in S.C.No.119 of 1997 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. Against all the twelve accused, the trial court framed charges under various penal provisions of Indian Penal code on 06.02.1998. Subsequently, the trial court, after due notice to both parties, altered the charges on 03.08.2011. Thus, all the twelve accused stood charged as detailed below:-

Serial Number of charge

Charges framed against

Charges framed

1

A1 to A12

U/s.147 of IPC

2

A1 to A12

U/s.148 of IPC

3

A1 to A12

U/s.452 of IPC

4

A3      

U/s.326 of IPC

5

A8      

U/s.326 of IPC

6

A1 to A12       

U/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC [Two counts]

7

A1 to A12

U/s.506(ii) of IPC

The 1st Accused was one Mr. Saleem, Son of Khader. He died during trial and, therefore, charges against him stood abated. The Accused Nos.2 to 12 alone faced the trial. The trial court, by Judgement, dated 29.11.2011, convicted all the eleven accused and sentenced them as detailed below:-

Rank of the Accused

Penal provision(s) under which convicted

Sentenced to undergo

 

 

 

 

 

 

A2

U/s.147of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for one year

U/s.452 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay

a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of A2 three months

U/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC [Two counts]

Imprisonment for life for  each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months

U/s.506(ii) of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years

 

 

 

 

 

A4 to A7 and A9 to A12

U/s.148 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

U/s.452 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months

U/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC [Two counts]

Imprisonment for life for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for each count in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months

U/s.506(ii) of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years

 

 

 

 

 

A3 and A8

U/s.148 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

U/s.452 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months

U/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC [Two counts]

Imprisonment for life for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for each count in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months

U/s.324 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

U/s.506(ii) of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years.

Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, A2 to A12 are now before this court with these criminal appeals.

2.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The 1st Accused [Since deceased] Mr. Saleem owned a shop building at No.1, Sali Street, North Uzman Road, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai. P.W.1-Mr.Ashokan was in occupation of the said building as a tenant and he was running a shop in the same. P.W.1's brother was also a tenant, under A1, of the adjoining portion in the same building. He was also running a shop in that portion. Both the shops were facing towards North Uzman Road. On the back of these portions, where P.W.1 and his brother were running shops, a dance hall was situated in the same building. A1 was a Dance Director in film industry. A portion in the first floor also was under the tenancy occupation of P.W.1. After six months from the date of commencement of the tenancy, P.W.1's brother handed over th

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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