Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
S. Nagamuthu and V.S. Ravi, JJ.
Veerapathiran and others - Appellants
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police Avaniapuram Police Station Madurai District - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Md). No. 416 of 2010
Decided On : 15-10-2015
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 326, 341 and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Criminal Trial – Offence of wrongful restraint and Unlawful assembly – Murder - Appeal against conviction - Deceased and his family members had freed pigs to enable them to go in search of food - Pigs went to locality, where accused were residing - It was a great nuisance for accused party - P.Ws.1 to 4 and deceased, went in search of pigs - They went to house of accused and questioned them as to why they had detained pigs - This resulted in a quarrel between two groups - In said quarrel, it is stated that all accused numbering 6 took out dangerous weapons like sword and knife - Accused formed into an unlawful assembly with object of killing deceased and attacking P.Ws.1 to 3 - They restrained deceased from moving further by so rounding him - When deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were within the circle, accused started mounting attacks on them - All 6 accused attacked deceased with weapons like, sword and knife and caused as many as 19 injuries - Held, P.Ws.1 to 3 are injured eye witnesses - Because of injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 their presence at place of occurrence is assured, regarding which, there can be no doubt at all - But crucial question is that though they were present at place of occurrence and though they had sustained injuries in very same occurrence, whether they are telling truth before Court - In other words, principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not been recognised by Indian Courts and therefore, we cannot reject evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, simply because, we find that there are some falsities in their evidence - At same time, if falsehood and truth are so intrinsically mixed with each other making it difficult for this Court to separate truth from falsehood, Court has no option but to reject their entire evidence – Court not able to separate grain from chaff - As we have already pointed out, FIR is a doubtful document - Prosecution witnesses have made lot of improvements and there are also lot of inconsistencies and improbabilities – Hence prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubts - Appeal is allowed.
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Madurai. The respondent filed final report against a total number of six accused including the appellants. The other two, by name, Thannasi and Eswaran were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and the case against them has been dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. Yet another accused Boomi @ Boominathan died during trial. Thus, these appellants/A1 to A3 were alone faced trial before the trial Court. The trial Court framed as many as five charges as detailed below:
Charges
Accused
Penal Provisions
1
A1 to A3
148 IPC
2
A1 to A3
341 IPC
3
A1 to A3
302 IPC
4
A2
326 IPC (2 counts)
5
A3
326 IPC
2. By judgment dated 24.03.2010, finally, the trial Court convicted the appellants as follows:
Accused
Conviction under Section
Sentence imposed
A1
148, 341 and 302 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
A2
148, 341, 302 and 326 (2 counts) IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each count for the offence under Section 326 IPC (2 counts).
A3
148, 341, 302 and 326 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 326 IPC
Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case was one Funk Mari @ Muthumari. P.W.1 is the brother, P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is yet another brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. They were all residing at Velupillai Street in Villapuram. The deceased and his family members were rearing pigs. All the four accused herein belonged to one family, as they are all brothers. The accused 5 and 6 are their relatives and they are the cousins of the accused 1 to 4. The accused were all residing in East Street, Villapuram, Madurai. The accused party were also rearing pigs.
3.1. Two days prior to 14.07.2001, the pigs belonging to the deceased party had gone to the East Street near the house of the accused. The accused party caught hold the pigs and detained them. P.W.2 and the deceased went in search of the same and they questioned the accused as to why they had detained their pigs. This resulted in a quar
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
