SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Shanmugam & Another - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 301 of 2017
Decided On : 01-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :V. Gopinath, SC for L. Mahendranm Advocate.
For the Respondent: V. Arul, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to establish guilt, while also considering the delay in registering the FIR and inconclusive blood grouping.

Headnote:

Conviction - Offences against person - IPC 341, 294[b], 324, 302 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the reliability of eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court analyzed the specific overt acts attributed to each accused and the delay in registering the FIR. The conviction and sentence of A-1 are confirmed, while A-2 is acquitted of all charges.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the appellants, A1 and A2, who were convicted for offences under IPC sections 341, 294[b], 324, and 302. The deceased was attacked by the appellants due to a property dispute, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses, medical reports, and police investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 and 2, was unreliable in implicating A-2 in the attack. However, the court relied on their evidence to establish the guilt of A-1 in causing the fatal injuries to the deceased. The court also considered the delay in registering the FIR and the inconclusive blood grouping in the evidence.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the delay in registering the FIR, and the interpretation of medical evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the evidence of eyewitnesses was unreliable in implicating A-2, it was sufficient to establish the guilt of A-1. The court also determined that the delay in registering the FIR and inconclusive blood grouping did not undermine the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of A-1 were confirmed, while A-2 was acquitted of all charges. A-1 was directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence, with the period already undergone to be given set-off.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Appellants, arrayed as A1 and A2 in the case tried in SC.No.137/2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, for offences u/s.341, 294[b], 324 and 302 IPC. The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 20.03.2017, found the appellants / accused guilty of the above said offences and awarded sentence, as follows:-

Rank of the Accused

Conviction under section

Sentence Awarded

A1 & A2

341 IPC

Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

 

294[b] IPC

Each of them were sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

 

324 IPC

Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

 

302 IPC

Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, with a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants/accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-

[a] A1-Shanmugam is the younger brother of the deceased Dharmalingam. A2-Kanakambaram is the wife of A1. The deceased Dharmalingam was residing in Karaiyur village with his two wives, viz., P.W.1-Poongothai and P.W.2-Ilavarasi. There was a dispute between the deceased and A1 in respect of 7 acres of land and civil suit is also pending. Due to such enmity, on 20.04.2016, at about 6.00 p.m., while the deceased was returning home after grazing goats, the accused waylaid the deceased ; scolded him in filthy language by saying as to why he had not partitioned the property and so saying, A1 cut the deceased with M.O.4-Bill Hook and A2 beat the deceased on the left ear and on the head with wooden reaper stick. When the deceased raised hue and cry, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the spot and when they attempted to prevent the attack on the deceased, A1 cut P.W.1 on right hand and A2 attacked P.W.2 with the reaper stick on her forehead and back side of the body.

[b] Immediately, P.W.9-Manikandan, son of the deceased and P.W.1, called Ambulance and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Vridhachalam. From there, the deceased was referred to JIPMER Hospital and he succumbed to injuries on 28.04.2016. While P.W.1 was in the Government Hospital at Vridhachalam, police came and obtained her statement under Ex.P.1. P.W.9 deposed that he had seen the deceased with blood stains and at that time the deceased informed him that A-1 did it for good reason. He also saw his aunt P.W.2 with blood injuries.

[c] P.W.13-Karunanidhi, Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to Pennadam Police Station, on receipt of intimation from the hospital on 20.04.2016, went to the hospital on 20.04.2016 at about 20.30 hours and recorded the statement from P.W.1, registered the crime in Cr.No.140/2016 u/s.341, 324, 294[b] and 307 IPC at about 22.30 hours. The Printed FIR is marked as Ex.P.6. He despatched the originals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 to the jurisdictional Court and forwarded the copies of the same to the higher officials.

[d] P.W.20-Raja, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station, on receipt of the Case Diary and FIR from P.W.13, took up the case for investigation and went to the hospital on the nights hours on 20.04.2016 and examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. On 21.04.2016, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.3] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.16] in the presence of P.W.6-Krishnakumar, VAO and one Sudha. He seized M.O.2-Blood stained cloth ; M.O.1-empty cool drink bottle ; M.O.3-a pair of chappals under the cover of Mahazar - Ex.P.5. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He again went to the hospital ; examined P.W.2 and rec




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top