Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.NAGAMUTHU AND V.BHARATHIDASAN, JJ.
Sudhakar [A1] - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Meenambakkam Airport Police Station, Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.406 and 397 of 2014
Decided on : 20-09-2016
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B), 302 r/w 34, 201, 392 r/w 397, 465 and 468 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 - Section 174 – Criminal Trial – Criminal Conspiracy – Offences of Murder and Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – Forgery - Quantum of sentence - Deceased was working as driver under P.W.2 driving said car as a taxi. P.W.3 was also a tax driver who was operating taxi from taxi stand at Airport -A1 to A3 was already known to P.W.3. around 08.30 p.m. A1 to A3 approached P.W.3 at taxi stand and wanted a toyota qualis car with air condition to go to Ulundurpet - Since P.W.3 did not have qualis car with air condition, he contacted Modern Travels at Pallavaram. P.W.1 was proprietor of said travel agency. P.W.3 told P.W.1 that some people are coming from Singapore and they wanted a qualis car with A/C for hire. P.W.1, in turn, contacted deceased and fixed his car - Deceased came with said car to travel agency run by P.W.1 - From P.W.1 and P.W.32 went in same qualis car driven by deceased to Airport-At airport, A1 to A3 were present in taxi stand-P.W.3 told P.W.1 that these three accused were to go to Ulundurpet in car-P.W.1 as well as deceased agreed - Held, Court view that though doctor, who conducted autopsy was not able to give any definite opinion regarding cause of death of deceased, prosecution has clearly established that death of deceased was a homicide and same was caused by A1 to A3 – Court do not find any reason to take a different view than view taken by the trial court in this regard as against A1 to A3 - No evidence against him except evidence of P.W.31 which is also a very vague piece of evidence - Therefore, conviction of A4 cannot be sustained – Trial court was right in convicting A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34, 201, 392 r/w 397 of IPC, however, conviction of A1 to A3 recorded by trial court for the offence under Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC is not sustainable and instead they are liable to be convicted under Section 465 of IPC simpliciter - Court do not find any reason to interfere with conviction and sentences so far as A1 to A3 are concerned for offences under Section 120-B, 302 r/w 34, 201, 392 r/w 397 of IPC - However, conviction and sentence imposed on A1 to A3 for offence under Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC are set aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 465 of IPC - Criminal appeal is allowed.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellants in Crl.A.No.406 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the sole appellant in Crl.A.No.397 of 2014 is Accused No.4 in S.C.No.694 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The trial court framed as many as eight charges against the accused as detailed below:-
| Charge Number | Charges framed against | Penal provision under which charge framed |
| 1 | A1 to A3 | Section 120(B) of IPC |
| 2 | A1 to A3 | Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC |
| 3 | A1 to A3 | Section 201 of IPC |
| 4 | A1 to A3 | Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC |
| 5 | A4 | Section 465 of IPC |
| 6 | A4 | Section 468 of IPC |
| 7 | A1 to A3 | Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC |
The trial court, by judgement dated 17.07.2014, convicted and sentenced the accused under various penal provisions as detailed below:-
| Rank of the Accused | Penal provision under which conviction recorded | Quantum of Sentence Imposed |
| A1 to A3 | Section 120(B) of IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A1 to A3 | Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC | Imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A1 to A3 | Section 201 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A1 to A3 | Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A1 to A3 | Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A4 | Section 465 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| A4 | Section 468 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year |
| In respect of charge No.8, there has been neither acquittal nor conviction of A1 to A3 | ||
Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A3 have come up with Criminal Appeal No.406 of 2014 while A4 has come up with Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2014.
2.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr. Ganesan. P.W.2 was owning a Toyota Qualis bearing Regn. No.TN 09 AA 0771. The deceased was working as driver under P.W.2 driving the said car as a taxi. P.W.3 was also a tax driver who was operating the taxi from the taxi stand at Meenambakkam Airport in Chennai. A1 to A3 were already known to P.W.3. On 12.07.2003, around 08.30 p.m. A1 to A3 approached P.W.3 at the taxi stand and wanted a toyota qualis car with air condition to go to Ulundurpet. Since P.W.3 did not have qualis car with air condition, he contacted Modern Travels at Pallavaram. P.W.1 was the proprietor of the said travel agency. P.W.3 told P.W.1 that some people are coming from Singapore and they wanted a qualis car with A/C for hire. P.W.1, in turn, contacted the deceased and fixed his car bearing Regn. No.TN 09 AA 0771. The deceased came with the said car to the travel agency run by P.W.1 at Pallavaram. From Pallavaram, P.W.1 and P.W.32 went in the same qualis car driven by the deceased to Meenambakkam Airport. At the airport, A1 to A3 were present in the taxi stand. P.W.3 told P.W.1 that these three accused were to go to Ulundurpet in the car. P.W.1 as well as the deceased agreed. A1 to A3 go into the said qualis car. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.32 also got into the car. The deceased drove the car upto a
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
