Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3534
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. SUNDRESH, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
R. Mahesh - Appellant
Vs.
State Rep By Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2016, 313 of 2015, 322 of 2015, 322 of 2015, 364 of 2015, 8 of 2016, 13 of 2016, 204 of 2016, 458 of 2016; Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 373 of 2016, 10914 of 2017, 6230 of 2018; Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 25-09-2018
P. Gopinath, Adv., P. Andiraj, Adv., K. Chellapandian, Adv., R. Anandharaj, Adv., S. Manoharan, Adv., S. Ramasamy, Adv., A. Joseph Jawahar, Adv., V. Kathirvelu, Adv., A. Banumathy, Adv., A. Thiruvadikumar, Adv., N. Anandakumar, Adv.
The court carefully scrutinized contradictory and doubtful evidence and relied on scientific evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime.
Headnote:
Motive, Scientific Evidence, and Identification Doubts - Criminal Law - 120(B), 148, 449, 302, 324, 506 IPC - The prosecution established the motive for the attack based on the death of a patient and the subsequent violence at the hospital. The court found the evidence of the sole eyewitness to be contradictory and doubtful, leading to the acquittal of most accused. However, the scientific evidence conclusively established the involvement of Accused No.1 in the crime, leading to the confirmation of his conviction and sentences.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a doctor, performed surgery on a patient, resulting in the patient's death and subsequent violence at the hospital. The sole eyewitness's evidence was contradictory and doubtful, leading to the acquittal of most accused. However, scientific evidence conclusively established the involvement of Accused No.1 in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole eyewitness to be contradictory and doubtful, leading to the acquittal of most accused. However, the scientific evidence conclusively established the involvement of Accused No.1 in the crime, leading to the confirmation of his conviction and sentences.
Issues: Contradictory and doubtful evidence of the sole eyewitness, scientific evidence establishing the involvement of Accused No.1, and the acquittal of most accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court carefully scrutinized the contradictory and doubtful evidence of the sole eyewitness and relied on the scientific evidence to establish the involvement of Accused No.1 in the crime.
Final Decision: Accused No.1's conviction and sentences were confirmed, while the other accused were acquitted due to contradictory and doubtful evidence.
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
The Accused Nos.1 to 4, 5&7 and 9, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, have come up with Crl.A[MD]Nos.313 of 2015, 8 of 2016, 364 of 2015, 322 of 2015, 13 of 2016 and 204 of 2016, challenging the Judgment dated 04.09.2015. The State has come up with Crl.A[MD]No.458 of 2016, challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos.6 to 10 u/s.302 r/w. 149 IPC. The Trial Court framed as many as six charges, as detailed below.
Charge No.
Accused No.
Penal Provisions
1
1 to 10
120(B) IPC
2
1 and 10
148 IPC
3
1 to 10
449 IPC
4
1 to 5 6 to 10
302 IPC 302 r/w. 149 IPC
5
1
324 IPC
6
1 to 10
506 IPC
By Judgment dated 04.09.2015, the Trial Court acquitted all the ten accused from some of the charges, as detailed below.
Accused No.
Penal Provisions
1 to 10
120(B) and 506(ii) IPC
6 to 10
302 r/w. 149 IPC
1
324 IPC
However, the Trial Court convicted all the ten accused and sentenced them, as detailed below:-
Accused
Section of Law
Sentence
Fine amount
1 to 10
148 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year.
No fine.
1 to 5
449 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten [10] years
Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year.
1 to 5
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year
2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
2.1. The deceased Doctor Sedhu Lakshmi, was a Chief Medical Officer in E.S.A. hospital. She was residing with her husband Thirugnana Sambantham [P.W.12] at Door No.97G/3A, New No.9, Kamaraj Nagar, Medical College Road, Thoothukudi. Adjacent to the above house, she was also running a hospital in the name and style 'Subam hospital'. P.W.12, a retired Professor of Geology is residing with the deceased and helping her.
2.2. On 30.12.2011, one Mahesh [A1] brought his wife Nithya, who was six months pregnant by then to the hospital. On examination, the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi informed A1 that Nithya's condition was critical as the child in the womb has died. The same was also informed to A1's family members. The deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi has therefore advised them to take Nithya to some other hospital for better treatment. However, A1 and his family members, as they know the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi and have taken treatment for many years, expressed their inability to spend money in other hospitals. They further requested the deceased doctor to provide treatment for Nithya.
2.3. In order to prevent danger to the said Nithya, the deceased doctor performed surgery to remove the dead foetus from the womb. However, after such surgery, the condition of A1's wife Nithya became worsen. Immediately, doctor Sedhu Lakshmi took Nithya to A.V.M. hospital, for further treatment. However, in the A.V.M. hospital, without responding to the treatment, Nithya died. Immediately, A1 and his family members agitated and shouted at the deceased doctor Sethu Lakshmi and indulged in violence in front of Subam hospital. P.W.12, immediately gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station [P.W.27]. Pursuant to the complaint given by P.W.12, P.W.27 called A1 and warned him not to create any quarrel in the hospital and advised him to take legal action.
2.4. When the matter stood thus, on 02.01.2012, at 08:30 p.m., the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi was in her chamber attending her out-patients. P.W.12 was also in the hospital campus. At that
