Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2986
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. NAGAMUTHU AND M.V. MURALIDARAN, JJ.
Rosemarry - Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District - Respondent
CRL. A (MD) No. 327 of 2014
Decided On : 16-09-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Balasundharam
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, Mr. D. Ramesh Kumar
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence, the requirement for strong evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, and the importance of presenting the true version of the occurrence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal Appeal - Sections 294(b), 302, 324, 307, 341, 323, 506(2) - The judgment discusses the acquittal of the accused in a case involving a boundary dispute resulting in a fatal quarrel. The court analyzed the eye witnesses' accounts, medical evidence, and the prosecution's failure to present the true version of the occurrence. The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of strong evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal quarrel arising from a boundary dispute, resulting in the death of Mr. Jesuraj. The accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, and the defacto complainant, the deceased's wife, appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of strong evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of eye witnesses' accounts, the suppression of medical records by the prosecution, and the failure to present the true version of the occurrence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for strong evidence to rebut the presumption, and the importance of presenting the true version of the occurrence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The respondents 2 to 4 were the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.140 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai. The first accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated 23.04.2014, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused from all charges. Challenging the said acquittal, the wife of the deceased, who is the defacto complainant in this case, has come up with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Jesuraj. He was a resident of South Street, Rajakulathur in Pudukkottai District. The first accused is the father of the second accused and the third accused is the wife of the second accused. They were all residing in the same Village and they were neighbours. There is a long standing dispute between these two family members in respect of a boundary dispute of the respective lands situated by the side of their houses. It is alleged that the deceased measured the said property and fixed the boundary. As per the said measurement made unilaterally by him, on 12.12.2010, around 01.00 p.m., the deceased was digging a pit to put up a boundary stone on the allotted properties. The first accused noticed the same. He went out of the house, reached the place of occurrence and questioned the deceased as to how he was justified in putting up a boundary stone without properly measuring the property. This resulted in a quarrel.
2.2. It is further alleged that suddenly, the first accused took out a crow-bar lying there and attacked the deceased on his head and back side. The second accused came to the place of occurrence, took out an aruval and cut the deceased on his head once. It is further alleged that the third accused also came to the place of occurrence, took out a wooden log and gave a single blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, when P.W.1 questioned, she alleged that the third accused attacked her on the right forehand. Then, all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased has fainted at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on hearing the alarm raised, the neighbours rushed to the place of occurrence. They took P.W.1 and the deceased to the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai. P.W.1 was admitted as inpatient. The deceased was given first aid treatment and since his condition was serious, he was advised to be taken to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Accordingly, he was taken to the said Hospital and admitted there as inpatient.
2.3. On receiving intimation from the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai, P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station went to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, she registered a case in Crime No.486 of 2010, under Sections 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.11 is the First Information Report. She forwarded both the documents to the Court.
2.4. The investigation was taken over by P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at 05.45 p.m., on the same day in the presence of the witnesses. Then, he examined few more witnesses at the said place of occurrence. On 13.12.2010, around 08.10 a.m., the deceased, who was undergoing treatment in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, succumbed to the injuries. On receiving the death intimation, P.W.15 altered the case into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.16 is the alterat
