Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU and V. BHARATHIDASAN, JJ.
Senba @ Senbaga Srikumar - Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2015
Decided On : 29-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Gopinath Sr. Counsel for Mr. L. Mahendran
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Balamurugane Additional Public Prosecutor(Pondy)
The judgment emphasizes the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the importance of substantive evidence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Conviction - Prisoner's Death - Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., Section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was lodged in a prison cell along with the accused and other inmates. He was found dead the next morning with blunt injuries. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the injuries leading to the deceased's death. The court noted that the witnesses who initially incriminated the accused turned hostile, and their statements could not be considered as substantive evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were responsible for the injuries on the deceased, leading to his death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere presence of the accused in the cell where the deceased died was not sufficient to establish their guilt. It emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant/first accused and the other accused, setting aside their convictions and sentences. It also directed the Union Territory of Puducherry to award compensation to the dependents of the deceased under the Victim Assistance Scheme.
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellant is the first accused in S.C. No. 74 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry. There were four other accused who were arrayed as accused 2 to 5. The trial Court framed charges against all the five accused for offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., Section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 10.09.2015, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 3 and 5 alone for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial Court acquitted the accused 1 to 3 and 5 from all the other charges. The 4th accused is still absconding and the case has been split up for separate trial. Challenging the said conviction and sentence the appellant/first accused alone has come up with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
2.1. The appellant/first accused and the second accused were life convicts. The accused 3 to 5 were involved in various other crimes and they were under-trail prisoners. All these five accused were lodged in Cell No. 6 at Yard No. 1 at the Central Prison, Kalapet in Puducherry.
2.2. The deceased in this case was one Mr. Selvaraj @ Siva. On 14.08.2009, he was brought to the Central Prison in pursuance of an order of remand made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Puducherry. After 06.00 p.m. on 14.08.2009, he was lodged in Cell No. 6, Yard No. 1, Central Prison, Kalapet along with accused 1 to 5. P.Ws.9 and 16 who were accused in some other cases were also lodged in the same Cell No. 6 as under-trial prisoners.
2.3. During the night at 10.30 p.m. the inmates of Cell No.6 told P.W.6 who was a Jail Warder that the deceased had fallen sick. P.W.2 the Principal Warder took the deceased from out of the cell and further took him to the Primary Health Center at Kalapet for treatment. After treatment, he brought back the deceased to the prison and lodged him in the same cell at 11.40 p.m. on 14.08.2009. P.W.6 was on duty till 01.00 a.m. on 15.08.2009. Around 12.30 a.m. he noticed the deceased sleeping in the cell.
2.4. As per the Jail Rules, after lodging the prisoners in the cell, the same shall be closed and locked at 06.00 p.m. everyday and the same would be opened on the next day morning at 06.00 a.m. As per the said procedure, on 15.08.2009, P.W.2 opened the Cell No. 6. All the five accused and P.Ws.9 and 16 came out of the cell. The deceased did not come out. P.W.2 and other Warders entered into the cell and found the deceased motionless. P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1.
2.5. P.W.1 was the then Superintendent of the said prison. On getting the said information at 06.20 a.m. on 15.08.2009, immediately, he rushed to Cell No. 6. He found that the deceased was dead. Soon, P.W.1 forwarded a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.28, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 120 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 15.08.2009 at 11.20 a.m.
2.6. P.W.29 took up the case for investigation. The Executive Magistrate (P.W.22) conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. P.W.29 examined various witnesses including these accused. Based on the report of P.W.22, he altered the case into one under Sections 147 and 302 I.P.C. He examined many persons including the officials and the Warders in the prison and recorded their statements. The Postmortem revealed that the deceased had died due to injuries on the chest and other parts of the body more particularly due to the fracture of the sternum between second and third ribs. On completing the investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the accused alleging that the accused 1 to 5 had attacked the deceased in the prison as he did not agree for homosex. Thus, according to the final report filed by P.W.29, these
