Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2939
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. NAGAMUTHU, M.V. MURALIDARAN, JJ.
Thilagaraj - Appellant
Vs.
Dharmaraj - Respondents
CRL.A(MD).No.202 of 2014
Decided On : 12-09-2016
For the Appellant : Mrs. M. Krishnaveni.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran.
The prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and witness testimonies should be consistent and reliable.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Conspiracy - 120-B IPC, 364 IPC, 302 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC - The court discussed the motive for the accused, the alleged conspiracy, and the actual occurrence, and found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused who were charged with criminal conspiracy and murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder the deceased due to his illicit relationship with the first accused's mother. The deceased was allegedly taken by the accused on a motorcycle and later found dead with multiple injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the alleged conspiracy and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court's decision to reject the prosecution's case was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the charges of criminal conspiracy and murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the prosecution to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the importance of consistency and reliability in witness testimonies.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the accused in S.C.No.74 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 stood charged, as detailed below.
Charge
Accused
Penal Provisions
1
1 to 4
120-B IPC
2
2 and 3
364 IPC
3
2 to 4
302 IPC
4
1
302 r/w 34 IPC
2. By Judgment dated 06.08.2013, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 4 from all the charges. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant, who is the father of the deceased, has come up with this Criminal Appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Ranjith. PW-1 is his father and PW-2 is his brother. They were all residing at Thuraiyur in Trichirappalli District. The first accused - Mr. Dharmaraj is also a resident of the same village. He is a friend of the deceased. On account of the said friendship, the deceased used to frequently visit the house of the first accused. In due course, it came to light that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the mother of the first accused. The first accused and his brother objected to the same. They reprimanded and warned him not to visit their house. But, the deceased did not stop the illicit intimacy with the mother of the first accused. The accused Nos.2 to 4 are his close friends. Therefore, the first accused decided to do away with the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the first accused. On account of the said motive, the first accused conspired with the accused Nos.2 to 4 to commit murder of the deceased.
3.1. It is further alleged that on 10.09.2012, at about 10.45 AM, the deceased was standing near Balaji Medical Shop on the Perambalur Road at Thuraiyur. At that time, the accused Nos.2 and 3 came there in a Motorcycle and took the deceased to the Police Station. Thereafter, the deceased did not return. PW-2, the brother of the deceased, claims that he was present at the time when the deceased was taken by the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the Motorcycle. When he enquired, it is stated that the accused Nos.2 and 3 told him that they were taking the deceased to the Police Station. PW-2 returned home and then, around 01.45 PM, he spoke to PW-1 and wanted him to return back home immediately. PW-1, a Mason by profession, was engaged in the work at his place. Therefore, he could not return home immediately.
3.2. Around 04.30 PM, he returned home. PW-2 informed him about the above occurrence. PW-1 and PW-2 immediately went to the house of the first accused to enquire the whereabouts of the deceased, believing that the first accused would have taken the deceased with the help of the accused Nos.2 and 3. It is further alleged that at that time, at 07.00 PM, when they enquired the first accused, he told that since the deceased had not stopped his illicit intimacy with his mother, he along with the others had done away with the deceased and threw him in a bush near Sudharshana College, at Kalipatti. PW-1 and PW-2 went to the said place and they did not find the deceased. Therefore, they returned home. On the next day, around 06.00 AM, when PW-1 went to the same village in search of the deceased, he found the dead body of the deceased near a bush. There were number of injuries on his body. Then, he went to the Thuraiyur Police Station and made a complaint at 06.30 AM, on 11.09.2012. EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P15 is the First Information Report. Both the documents were forwarded to the Court, which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 09.50 AM.
3.3. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-24 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-1 and another witness. He recovered bloodstained earth an
