Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
KARTHICK - Appellant
Versus
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2011
Decided on : 09-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
M.G. Udayashankar, Adv., S. Shantha Kumari, Adv., T.P. Savitha, Adv.
Corroborative evidence from eyewitness testimony and medical reports can establish guilt, even if expert reports are non-supportive. Delay in sending the FIR does not weaken the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 304 Part I, Section 294(b), Section 323, Section 324, Section 506(2) - The judgment discusses the assault on the deceased, medical evidence, delay in sending the FIR, and the intention of the accused. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC, but reduced the sentence from ten years to five years.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was assaulted by the appellants due to a land dispute, resulting in injuries and eventual death. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the witnesses and the medical officer confirmed the assault by the accused, leading to the death of the deceased. The delay in sending the FIR and non-supportive reports from experts did not weaken the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues included contradictions in witness testimony, delay in sending the FIR, and the presence of the accused's family members during the assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the corroborative evidence of eyewitness testimony and medical reports to establish the guilt of the accused. The delay in sending the FIR and non-supportive expert reports did not undermine the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC, but reduced the sentence from ten years to five years, considering the circumstances of the case and the accused's period of proceedings.
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
1. The appellants are arrived as A1 to A3, in SC.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram. The appellants stood charged for the offence under section 302 IPC. By Judgment dated 10.10.2011, the Trial Court convicted them under section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case is one Shankar who is the husband of PW-1. After the death of 1st wife Chellammal, the deceased married PW-1 as his 2nd wife. After their marriage they are blessed with one female child. All the accused in this case are neighbours to the deceased. Their houses are situated left to the house of the deceased. Prior to the occurrence due to the land dispute all the accused frequently quarreled with the deceased.
3. On 31.03.2009, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Shankar and his son Saran Raj returned to the house after completing their regular work. At that time, a dog came from the accused house and admitted to bite the deceased. So, the deceased asked the 2nd accused to tie the dog, encroached over the house of the deceased. The 2nd accused in this case, abused the deceased by using filthy language. Further, the 2nd accused through his leg kicked the deceased on the abdominal area. While so, the 3rd accused Muniammal came and by her hand assaulted the deceased on his nose. Further, the 1st accused Karthik took a black stone and attacked on the abdominal part of the deceased. Due to the attack made by the 1st accused, the deceased fell down near his house. Further, the 1st accused by using another black stone assaulted the deceased on the right forehead. Meanwhile, after seeing, the Raman (P.W.3) who is brother's son of the deceased, all the accused went to their house. Subsequent to that PW-1 and PW-3, admitted the deceased in Chengalpattu Hospital. At that time of admitting the deceased in the said hospital, the time is about 12.00' clock mid night in the said hospital. Meanwhile, on the day of occurrence at about 9.30 hours PW-6, Vijaybanu admitted the injured as an in-patient in Chengalpattu Hospital and noticed the injuries found on his body. In this regard, he issued AR copy under Ex.P.3. Subsequently, the injured was referred to the Government General Hospital for further treatment. Next day early morning at about 4.00 pm, PW-11 Duraisamy, the Sub Inspector, Uttiramerur Police station came to the hospital and recorded statement from the deceased. Ex.P.1 is the statement given by the deceased. After recording the statement, PW-11 returned to the Police Station and registered the case in Crime No.205 of 2009 under section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (2) IPC. Ex.P.10 is the printed F.I.R. On the same day, about 17 hours, he went to the Scene of Occurrence and in the presence of PW-5, Sarathkumar and one Nagarajan, he prepared the observation mahazaar Ex.P.2. Further he drew the rough sketch under Ex.P.11. At about 18 hours, in the presence of the same witness he recovered two black rocks M.O.1 and M.O.2 under recovery mahazaar Ex.P.2. He also examined PWs-2 to PW-7 and recorded their statements.
4. In continuation of the investigation on 02.04.2009 on the information at about 5.00 a.m at Ammai Appanallur Junction four road, he arrested all the accused and sent them to judicial custody. On the same day at about 19.30 hours, PW-12 the then Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram received the death intimation of the deceased. Subsequent to that, he altered the Section of law to 302 IPC and prepared an alteration report under Ex.P.13. On the same day, he went to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and in the presence of witnesses he prepared inquest report under Ex.P.14. Thereafter thr
