Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3529
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Jaichandren and S. Nagamuthu, JJ.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem, Salem District Crime No.59 of 2007 - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 603 of 2013
Decided On : 21-04-2016
For the Appellants :M/s. Swaminathan, Law Associates, Mr. R. Karthikeyan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja, Addl.P.P. in both the appeals
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148 and 302 - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Properties (Damages and Loss) Act 1992 - Section 3(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 164 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Rioting, armed with deadly weapon and Murder – Appeal against conviction - Deceased in this case was he was an accused in a number of cases as well as murder cases - On many occasions, he was imprisoned in connection with those cases - Since died, was also similarly an offender in many theft cases and murder cases - He was also lodged in prison in connection with those cases - When deceased were in prison, inside prison, there arose mis-understanding between them, which resulted in frequent quarrels and ultimately, same developed into a very strong enmity between deceased and Vijay @ Vijay Kannan - Accused/ appellants herein, are associates of Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan - Thus, these six appellants, were close associates involved in crimes - While in prison, in one of quarrels between Vijay @ Vijay Kannan and deceased challenged that on getting released from prison, he would not spare deceased Mr. Muthu and he would do away with him outside prison - Deceased informed same to his mother (P.W.1) - Held, From evidence of P.W.3, it has been clearly established that P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have been present at time of occurrence - So far as P.W.4 is concerned, according to learned counsel, his name does not find a place in First Information Report and therefore, his presence, at place of occurrence, is also doubtful - Turning to P.W.7, learned counsel would submit that he also would not have been present, which is evident from fact that statement recorded from him, under Section 161 of Code by P.W.15, had reached Court one month after occurrence - He has further stated that he did not go to Doctor for injury, allegedly sustained by him, at very same occurrence - Learned counsel has pointed out certain other discrepancies in these evidences, in an attempt to convince this Court that these eyewitnesses cannot be believed - Prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - According to him, presence of eyewitnesses, at place of occurrence, is quite natural and there are no reasons to doubt their credentials - He would further submit that P.W.7 is an injured eyewitness - His presence, at place of occurrence, cannot be doubted - He would further submit that motive for occurrence had been clearly established and presence and participation of all these accused has also been spoken vividly by all eyewitnesses - Appeals dismissed.
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellants are the accused 1 to 6, in Sessions Case No.155 of 2002, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed below:
Sl.No.
Charges (Section of law)
Accused
1.
U/s.148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Properties (Damages and Loss) Act 1992
A1
2.
U/s.148, 324 and 302 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code
A2
3.
U/s.148 and 302 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code
A3 to A6
By JUDGMENT dated 14.08.2013, the trial Court convicted all the six accused under these charges and sentenced them as follows:
Sl.No.
Rank of accused
Conviction
Sentence
1.
A1 to A6
U/s.148 of the Indian Penal Code
Rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
A2
U/s.324 of the Indian Penal Code
Rigorous imprisonment for one year.
A1
U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code
Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year each.
U/s.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Properties (Damages and Loss) Act, 1992.
Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months.
A2 to A6
under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year.
The sentences imposed against A1 to A6 have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, A1 has preferred Crl.A.No.627 of 2013 and A2 to A6 have preferred CrlA.No.603 of 2013.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Muthu. He was an accused in a number of cases as well as murder cases. On many occasions, he was imprisoned in connection with those cases. One Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan, since died, was also similarly an offender in many theft cases and murder cases. He was also lodged in the prison in connection with those cases. When the deceased Mr. Muthu and Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan were in prison, inside the prison, there arose mis-understanding between them, which resulted in frequent quarrels and ultimately, the same developed into a very strong enmity between the deceased and Vijay @ Vijay Kannan. The accused/the appellants herein, are the associates of Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan. One Mr. Gilli @ Suresh and Mr. Azhagappan were also the associates of Vijay @ Vijay Kannan. Mr. Gilli @ Suresh and Azhagappan are also now no more. Thus, these six appellants, Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan, Mr. Gilli @ Suresh and Mr. Azhagappan were close associates involved in crimes.
(b) While in prison, in one of the quarrels between Vijay @ Vijay Kannan and the deceased Muthu, Vijay @ Vijay Kannan challenged that on getting released from prison, he would not spare the deceased Mr. Muthu and he would do away with him outside the prison. The deceased Mr. Muthu informed the same to his mother (P.W.1).
(c) Few weeks before the occurrence, the deceased Mr. Muthu had come out from the prison. He had forced the first accused Civil @ Ravichandran to pay some amount to him. On coming out from the prison, one week prior to the occurrence, Vijay @ Vijay Kannan, along with the accused 1 and 3 herein, came to the house of the deceased and wanted back the money received from the first accused. Mr. Vijay @ Vijay Kannan shouted that he himself was a big rowdy and therefore, how dare the deceased was to demand money from his associate namely, the first accused. The deceased informed Vijay @ Vijay Kannan that he had not received any such amount from the first accused. When the quarrel was in progress, P.W.1 and other neighbours in
