Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN AND S.NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Punnivathi & anr – Petitioners
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Moolanur Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.793 and 847 of 2011 and 47, 48 and 150 of 2012
Decided on : 15-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Sundar Mohan for Mr.Muruganantham for Appellant[A3] in Crl.A.No.793 of 2011 and Appellant [A1] Crl.A.No.150 of 2012
Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Amarnath for Appellant [A2] in Crl.A.No.847 of 2011
Mr.R.John Sathyan for Appellants [A8 to A10] in Crl.A.No.47 of 2012 and Appellants 1 and 4 [A4 and A7] in Crl.A.No.48 of 2012
Mr.A.Raghunathan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Su.Srinivasan for Appellant [A5 & A6] in Crl.A.No.48 of 2012
For the Respondent:Mr. M.Maharaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent in all Criminal Appeal
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 r/w 149 , 449, 147and 120 (B) - Appeal Against conviction - Mischievous information - Deceased in this case was one mother of For about ten years there was no love lost between families of accused and deceased - House of accused is situated just on north of house of deceased - One of deceased there was a boundary dispute between and A1 to A3 - In respect of said dispute had made a complaint to police against were under mistaken impression that it was only on instigation of deceased had made such a complaint to police against A3 - This is yet another reason for ill feelings between the two families - A3 had a daughter by name efforts taken by A1 to A3 to fix a bridegroom for could not succeed because deceased had allegedly given some mischievous information prospective bridegrooms who had responded to said marriage proposal - Held, Before concluding this judgment court would like to express our displeasure and anguish over way in which trial court had framed charges in instant case - A cursory reading of charges as extracted in of this judgment would clearly go to show that trial court had shown callous attitude while framing charges without realizing the greater responsibility which court should have had while framing appropriate charges - Charge No.2 is against Accused 4 to 9 for offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code - Though some of accused were armed with deadly weapons instead of framing charge under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code trial court had framed charge under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code against them also – Therefore for graver offence they could not be convicted - Further trial court had framed a charge under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code as against A5 A6 and A7 but framed a charge under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code against A7 – Similarly A8 was a member of group of people who committed dacoity - It is not known as to why trial court framed charge as against A8 only for offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code Similarly it is not known as to why trial court had not framed charge against - Criminal Appeal is partly allowed
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellants are the Accused Nos.1 to 10 in S.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. They stood charged as detailed below:-
Serial Number of charge
Charge(s) framed against
Charge(s) framed under
1.
A1 to A10
120(B) of IPC
2.
A4 to A9
147 of IPC
3.
A4 to A9
449 of IPC
4.
A4, A5 & A6
302 of IPC
5.
A7, A8 & A9
302 r/w 149 of IPC
6.
A1 to A3 and A10
302 r/w 120(B) of IPC
7.
A7 & A8
394 of IPC
8.
A5, A6 and A7
395 of IPC
9.
A8 & A9
323 of IPC
10.
A7
506(ii) of IPC [Two counts]
2. By Judgment, dated 30.11.2011, the trial court convicted all the ten accused and sentenced them as detailed below:-
Rank of the Accused
Penal provision(s) under which convicted
Sentence
A1 to A10
120 (B) of IPC
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
A4 to A9
147 of IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
A4 to A9
449 of IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
A4 to A6
302 of IPC
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
A7 to A9
302 r/w 149 of IPC
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
A1 to A3 and A10
302 r/w 120(B) of IPC
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
A7 and A8
394 of IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
A5, A6 and A7
395 of IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
A8 & A9
323 of IPC
Simple imprisonment for six months
A7
506(ii) of IPC [Two counts]
Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years on each count
Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, A1 to A10 are now before this court with these Criminal Appeals.
3.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sundaram. A3 is the mother of A1. A2 is a pangali [relative] of A1. For about ten years, there was no love lost between the families of the accused and the deceased. The house of the accused is situated just on the north of the house of the deceased. One Mr.Nithyanandham is a pangali [relative] of the deceased. There was a boundary dispute between Mr.Nithyanandham and A1 to A3. In respect of the said dispute, Mr.Nithyanandham had made a complaint to the police against A3. A1 to A3 were under the mistaken impression that it was only on the instigation of the deceased, Mr.Nithyanandham had made such a complaint to the police against A3. This is yet another reason for the ill feelings between the two families. A3 had a daughter by name Miss.Punniavathi. The efforts taken by A1 to A3 to fix a bridegroom for Miss.Punnivathi could not succeed because the deceased had allegedly given some mischievous information to the prospective bridegrooms who had responded to the said marriage proposal. Thus, the marriage for Miss.Punnivathi was getting delayed. This is yet another reason for the rivalry. Two months prior to the occurrence, the cattle belonging to A3 had entered into the field of the deceased and grazed. This had also resulted in a quarrel between A3 and the wife of the deceased. These are all the incidents which culminated into a very strong motive
