Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran, JJ.
Rajkumar [A7] & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State, rep by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Madurai City OCU & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A.(MD). Nos. 182, 185, 197, 218, 269 of 2015, 131, 232, 353, 395 and 419 of 2016 and M.P.(MD). Nos. 1, 1 of 2015 and CRL. MP. (MD). Nos. 1051 and 3416 of 2016
Decided On : 23-01-2017
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 149 and 120-B, 364(A), 387 - unlawful assembly -Conspiracy – Murder – Abduction KIndnapping – Acquittal and conviction - disclosure statement made by A1 which led to the discovery of M.O.6 and the receipt Ex.P.162 have not been proved in evidence at all. It is true. This reflects the obvious illequipment or ignorance of the public prosecutor who conducted the case. It is not known as to why the public prosecutor omitted to request the court to mark the disclosure statement which led to the discovery of M.O.6 and Ex.P.162. But, on that sore, we cannot reject the evidence of P.W.51 and P.W.99- A1 came, produced passport size photographs and model identity card and wanted to prepare an identity card of the police. This has been spoken by P.W.55 very elaborately. There is no reason to reject the same. Thus, A1 is liable to be punished for offence under Section 468 of IPC. So far as A2 is concerned, there is no evidence for forgery and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal from the said charge and the trial court itself has acquitted him from the said charge.- Kidnapping for ransom, murder and disposal of the dead body of the deceased would not have been done only by two persons and few more persons would have joined A1 and A2, for want of evidence and because of the failure of the investigating agency to collect sufficient evidences, we are unable to convict the other culprits who joined hands with A1 and A2. We are only hoping that in the days to come, the investigating officers will be properly trained in legal matters so that there shall occur no failure of justice - criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 9, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, have come up with Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 182, 185, 197, 218 of 2015, 131, 232, 395 and 419 of 2016, challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, by Judgment dated 10.04.2015. The State has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.353 of 2015, challenging the acquittal of these accused under various provisions. The de facto complainant, namely, the son of the deceased, has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.269 of 2015, challenging the acquittal of these accused under various charges. The Trial Court framed as many as ten charges against all the nine accused, as detailed below.
Charge No.
Accused No.
Penal Provisions
1
1 to 9
149 and 120-B IPC
2
1 and 6
419 and 468 IPC
3
1 to 5, 7, 8 and 9
364(A) IPC
4
1
387 IPC
5
2 and 3
341 IPC
6
1 to 5, 7,8 and 9
365 IPC
7
1 and 5
506(i) and 294(b) IPC
8
1 and 2
302 IPC
9
1 to 3
302 r/w 201 IPC
10
4 to 9
201 r/w 302 IPC
By Judgment dated 10.04.2014, the Trial Court acquitted all the nine accused from some of the charges, as detailed below.
Accused No.
Penal Provisions
1
120-B, 365, 419, 506(i) and 294(b) IPC
2
120-B, 341 and 365 IPC
3
120-B, 341, 365 IPC
4, 7, 8 and 9
120-B, 365, 201 r/w 302 IPC
5
120-B, 365, 294(b), 506(i), 201 r/w 302 IPC
6
120-B, 419, 201 r/w 302 IPC
However, the Trial Court convicted all the nine accused and sentenced them, as detailed below:-
Accused
Section of Law
Sentence
Fine amount
1
468 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
364(A) IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
387 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
To undergo imprisonment for life.
201 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2 and 3
364(A) IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
months.
201 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
4, 5, 7, 8 and 9
364(A) IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
6
468 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Dr. Baskaran, aged about 71 years. He was a very popular Doctor in Dindigul Town. He was also owning vast extent of properties both in Dindigul as well as in Kodaikanal. PW-1 - Dr. Ganesh is his son and PW-2 - Mrs. Vanitha is his wife. PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased were residing at Door No.34-J, AMC Road, Dindigul Town. PW-1 and the deceased were running their clinic under the name and style "Kasi Clinic", at Palani Road in Dindigul. Opposite to the house of the deceased, i.e., on the other side of the road, Cosmopolitan Club Building is situated. The deceased was, incidentally, the President of the said Club. The deceased used to start around 05
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
