Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Nagamuthu and N. Authinathan, JJ.
Venkatesan and others – Appellants
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Cuddalore – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 246, 252, 253, 304 of 2014
Decided On : 03-02-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. C. Vijayakumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Rajarathinam, Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 148, 452, 332, 333, 307 (2 counts) 302 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 – Member of unlawful assembly – Murder - nine accused were all members of a separatist organization known as "Tamilar Vidudalai Padai(jkpHh; tpLjiy gil. The said organization was founded to separate the area where Tamil speaking people are living in the country and to form an independent Tamil nation. In order to achieve an independent Tamil Nation, the members of this organization were indulging various anti-national activities and they had a plan to wage a war against the Indian union – Held, Simply because he declined to give a judicial confession and simply because he told that he was kept in illegal custody from 27.05.1991 onwards, his evidence cannot be out right rejected. At the most, his evidence can be viewed only with suspicion which would give raise to a presumption of a fact that he is unworthy of credit. As held by the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sabu v. Emperors case (cited supra), as a rule of caution, since, P.W.2 is unworthy of credit, we should look for corroboration from any other independent source on material particulars. If there is no corroboration from any other independent source, on material particulars, then, we cannot convict the accused solely based on the above evidence of P.W.2 who is presumed to be unworthy of credit -prosecution relies on the evidence of approver (P.W.2) alone and there is no evidence against him. As we have already stated, there is no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the approver. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in Haroon hajis case (cited supra), we look for evidence, independently of P.W.2, to connect A.1 with the crime namely, conspiracy, allegedly hatched. Unfortunately, P.W.20 who was examined to speak about the conspiracy has turned hostile. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence against A.1 except the evidence of approver (P.W.2) which draws no corroboration from any other source. Therefore, A.1 cannot be convicted solely based on the above approvers evidence. Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal – Ordered accordingly
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellants in Crl.A.No.246 of 2014 are the accused 2 to 5, 7 & 9; the appellant in Crl.A.No.252 of 2014 is the 8th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.no.253 of 2014 is the 6th accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.304 of 2014 is the 1st accused in S.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. They stood charged for various offences as detailed below:-
Charge No.
Accused
Section of law
1
A.1
120(B) I.P.C.,
2
A.2
120(B), 148, 452, 398 332 r/w 149, 309 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.
3
A.3
120(B), 148, 452, 332, 333, 307, 302, 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.
4
A.4
120(B), 148, 452, 332, 307, 333, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302 r/w 49 and 398 r/w 149 I.P.C.
5
A.5
148, 452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302, 333 r/w 149 and 398 r/w 149 I.P.C.
6
A.6
148, 452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 332, 307, 302 r/w 149, 398 r/w 149 and 333 r/w 149 I.P.C.
7
A.7
148, 452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 333 r/w 149 and 398 I.P.C.
8
A.8
120(B) 148, 452, 332 IPC, 25(1-B) (A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, 307, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 333, 302 and 398 r/w 149 I.P.C.
9
A.9
148, 452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302, 333 r/w 149 and 398 r/w 149 I.P.C.
By judgment dated 20.03.2014, the trial Court convicted all the nine accused and sentenced them under various charges as detailed below:-
Sl. No
Section of law
Accused
Sentence
1
120 B I.P.C.,
A.1
Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2
120(B), 148, 452, 398, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 & 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,
A.2
Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 120(B) I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., Sl. No Section of law Accused Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 398 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 332 r/w 149 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in defualt to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,
3
120(B), 148, 452, 332, 333, 307 (2 counts) 302 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.,
A.3
Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 120(B) I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonme
