2017 Supreme(Mad) 1412

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Nagamuthu, P.N. Prakash, N. Authinathan, JJ.
Chinnathambi @ Subramani [A1] - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2017

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 449, 457, 302 r/w 34 -201 – Offence of Murder - Deceased in this case was one Maakali. He was the watchman in the temple known as "Pushpagiri Arulmigu Velayuthasami Temple" at Pushpagiri Nagar in Mettupalayam. P.W.1 was a trustee of the said temple during the relevant period. The temple used to be kept open for public darshan after the temple was closed for darshan, the deceased alone was in the temple on duty as watchman. It is alleged that these three accused trespassed into the temple by breaking open the locks of the temple with a view to commit robbery of the gold and silver ornaments kept in the temple. When the deceased watchman, who was on duty in the temple, resisted, it is alleged that A1, with the help of a towel, strangulated the deceased by neck and also attacked him with a crowbar on his head and neck and killed him – Held, conclusion of the trial court is totally erroneous and illegal as pendency of other criminal cases against the accused cannot be a ground even to remotely assume that the appellant/A1 was the perpetrator of the crime in the instant case. The further observation of the trial court that the investigating officer would not have arrested him in this case, but for his involvement in this crime, only bears testimony to the imagination of the Judge and for such imagination, there is no legal sanction. The courts of law cannot allow themselves to be swayed by these kind of totally irrelevant substances which are brought to the notice of the court not by way of evidence, but by way of wholly unrelated materials. The courts of law cannot assume the role of a monarch or dictator so as to impose any punishment on anyone at their whims and fancies even in the absence of any legal evidence -life and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as a fundamental right, cannot be deprived of except by following the procedure established by law. Such procedure denotes fair procedure which in turn demands proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. In other words, choked with emotion or driven by local sentiments, out of mere surmise or suspicion, a court of law cannot afford to convict an accused. Such conviction is certainly unconstitutional as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the trial court has convicted the appellant/A1 only based on mere surmise. As we have already pointed out, absolutely, there is no evidence against the appellant and the appellant/A1 is, therefore, entitled for acquittal -criminal appeal is allowed