Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 747
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JAICHANDREN AND S.NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Manju @ Manjunath and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2013
Decided On : 29-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Haroon Al. Rasheed
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor,
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302, 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. - The court discussed the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the lack of connection between the evidence and the crime. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was attacked and killed by the accused while he was riding his motorcycle. The accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the connection between the evidence and the crime was not established.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and the prosecution had not succeeded in creating a strong suspicion against the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
S.Nagamuthu. J.
The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.104 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The deceased in this case was one Mr.Nagaraj. On 21.11.2009, at about 7.30 pm, the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle on the Thenkanikottai – Anjetti Road. When he was nearing the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies godown, the accused 1 and 2 intercepted him.
On stopping the vehicle, the deceased questioned the accused as to why they had stopped him. Immediately, it is alleged that A.1 pulled the helmet of the deceased and A.2 pushed him down. Then, A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased with helmet as well as stones on his head and other parts of the body. They also strangulated the deceased with rope. The deceased died on the spot. Abandoning the dead body and the motor cycle as well as the helmet at the place of occurrence, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone. The dead body of the deceased was found on 21.11.2009 at 7.30 am by P.W.1, who went to the place of occurrence for morning exercise. On seeing the dead body at 8.00 am on 21.09.2009, he made a complaint to Thenkanikottai Police Station. P.W.7, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.332 of 2009 for offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the F.I.R. P.W.7 forwarded both the documents (Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.14) to the Court and the same was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 6.00 pm on 21.11.2009.
3. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.8. He visited the place of occurrence on 21.11.2009 at 10.00 am and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness. Then he made arrangements for the photographer to take photographs at the place of occurrence. Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the place of occurrence and forwarded the body for post mortem.
4. P.W.5, the Doctor conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-
“External Injuries:-
1. Lacerated injury of 3x2x bone deep over right ear side of forehead
2. Lacerated injury of 7x3xbone deep over a right supra orbital region lateral side
3. Right zygoma fracture
4. Lacerated injury of 3x3xbone deep over right zygoma present
5. Punctured wound of 2x3xbone deep right side cheek
6. Punctured wound of 4x3xbone deep over right side madibular region
7. Right side madible body fractured exposing bone
8. Punctured wound of 2x2 over right side submandibular region
9. Cut injury 4x4 cm over right lobule of ear
10. Lower central and lateral incisor ...... contusion present
11. Left side body of mandible fractured
12. Contusion of 10x3 over left side of face present
13. Multiple pressure abrasions present over anterior aspect of neck present.
14. Lacerated injury of 6x2xbone deep over right side of parietal region of skull
15. Multiple pressure abrasions over left infra clavicular region, stermum, right infra clavilular region
16. left side shoulder dislocation present.”
5. In continuation of the investigation, P.W.8 recovered the broken helmet; one pair of chappal; blood stained earth; sample earth and Titan watch from the place of occurr
