Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Nagamuthu and N. Authinathan, JJ.
Muniyandi and others – Appellants
Versus
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Roshani Police Station, Thindivanam and others – Respondents
Crl.A.No. 284 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No. 6203 of 2016 with Crl.A.No. 63 of 2017
Decided On : 10-02-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Ragunathan, Sr. Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Govindarajan, Addl. P.P
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - .302 ,324 – Offence of Murder - P.Ws.1 to 12 along with the deceased and yet another person were proceeding to the house of one Reddiyar to meet him. At that time, all these 50 accused came to the said place in an unlawful assembly and intercepted them. Some of the accused were armed with knives, some with iron pipes, some with iron rods and others with wooden logs (The details have been mentioned in the charge. We do not extract those details, as they may not be necessary at this stage). On reaching the place of occurrence, these 50 accused surrounded P.Ws.1 to 12 and the deceased and started attacking them – Held, on going through the evidences recorded by the trial Court, we find that there are lot of anomalies. The marking of documents and Material Objects have not been done properly. All these shortcomings, which we have pointed out herein above, would all go to show that the learned trial Judge, the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial and the learned counsel, who defended the accused, did not bestow their attention to ensure that justice is done to the parties. Because of the contribution made by all the three, now, we are unable to even separate the grain from the chaff. In fact, when we dealt with the application filed by some of the accused under Section 389 Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence, we directed the Registrar to send the learned Judge Mr. Bharanidharan, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, for judicial training in the judicial academy. We are informed that he accordingly underwent judicial training. We believe that at least now he would have learnt his judicial responsibilities. We are also pained to caution the judicial officers that in future, if we come across any such dereliction on the part of the judicial officers, we may have to recommend for appropriate departmental action against such officers when his service comes up for review, under Service Rules, at the age 50 of and 55 and when it comes up for extension at the age of 5 – Criminal Appeal allowed
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellants in Crl.A.No.284 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 13, 15, 28, 29, 34, 36 and 26 in S.C.No.324 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. Including these appellants, there were a total number of 50 accused in the case. By judgment dated 5.4.2016, the trial Court convicted the appellants in Crl.A.No.284 of 2016 and sentenced them accordingly, as detailed below:
Sl. No
Rank of accused
Conviction
Sentence
1.
A1, A9, A10, A11, A12, A16 and A17
U/s.302 IPC
Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,500/-, each, in default, two months simple imprisonment.
2.
A13, A15, A16, A28, A29, A34, A36
U/s.324 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, each, in default, two months simple imprisonment.
3.
A26
U/s.326 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.2,5000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment.
They were acquitted from the other charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, they have come up with Crl.A.No.284 of 2016. The trial Court, by the said judgment, acquitted the rest of the accused from all the charges framed against them. As against the acquittal of them, the State has come up with Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2017. That is how both these appeals are before us for disposal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) All these 50 accused hail from Melpakkam Village, in Tindivanam Taluk. P.Ws.1 to 12 and one Mr. Nagappan also belong to the same village. In the Panchayat Election held in the year 2011, one Mrs. Kasiammal, Mr. Tamilmurasu and Mrs. Annakili contested for the post of Village Panchayat Board President. Finally, Mrs. Kasiammal won the Election. P.W.1 is the son-in-law of Kasiammal. P.Ws.2 to 12 are either relatives or friends of Mrs. Kasiammal, who had worked as a group in support of Mrs. Kasiammal, in the Election. All these accused belong to the opposite group, who lost in the Election. From the time of Election, the village became factious and the prosecution party and the accused party had become enimical towards each other.
(b) On 11.12.2011, when Nagappan was returning to the village, the accused Nos.1, 9, 17 and 28 intercepted him and quarreled with him. At that time, they also challenged the deceased that they would not spare him alive. The deceased came to the village and informed the same to one Mr. Annathurai (P.W.2). P.W.1 was also present at that time. P.W.2 told the deceased as well as P.W.1 not to take the said challenge so seriously. He pursuaded them to go home. Accordingly, the matter was over on that day.
(c) On the next day, that was on 12.12.2011, around 8.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 12 along with the deceased and yet another person were proceeding to the house of one Reddiyar to meet him. At that time, all these 50 accused came to the said place in an unlawful assembly and intercepted them. Some of the accused were armed with knives, some with iron pipes, some with iron rods and others with wooden logs (The details have been mentioned in the charge. We do not extract those details, as they may not be necessary at this stage). On reaching the place of occurrence, these 50 accused surrounded P.Ws.1 to 12 and the deceased and started attacking them. It is alleged that the first accused attacked the deceased with knife on his head; the second accused attacked him with knife on his head; the third accused attacked him on the back of chest with iron pipe; the fourth accused attacked him with knife on the head; the fifth accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe on his head; the 6th accused attacked him with wooden log on his back of chest; the seventh accused attacked him with iron pipe on his head; the eighth accused attacked him with wooden log on the back of chest; the ninth accused attacked him with knife
