Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Thambu - Petitioners
Versus
State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Auroville - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 05-03-2019
For the Petitioners:Arun Anbumani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, corroboration of evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Thambu - Criminal Appeal - Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 326, 307, 302 of I.P.C - The court discussed the evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, the recovery of the weapon, and the delay in filing the First Information Report. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of corroboration, and irregularities in the charges framed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant Thambu was convicted for various offenses in a double murder case. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and evidence of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the contradictions in witness testimonies, the recovery of the weapon, and the delay in filing the First Information Report. The court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused through the injured witnesses and other evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, contradictions in their statements, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies regarding the appellant's presence at the scene of the crime and the overt acts attributed to him. The court also considered the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court were confirmed.
1. The appellant Thiru.Thambu S/o. Murthy is one of the accused prosecuted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 452, 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C in a double murder case investigated by the respondent police in Crime No.310 of 2003.
2. Background of the case:-
According to the First Information Report registered by the Auroville Police Station in Cr.No.310 of 2003 dated 16.10.2003, Elumalai 4th ward member of Navarkulam engaged in real estate business. He along with four others jointly promoted a property at Vasanthapuram. Ploted it and was selling. A week before the incident Thambu (the Appellant) and kumar demanded share in the business profit. When Elumalai refused, Thambu threatened him dire consequences. Then on 15.10.2003 Thambu, Kumar, Saravanan, Thagu and four others came with lethal weapons to Elumalai house. Brutally attacked Selvam and Thirunavukarasu who were standing in the ground floor. Then climbed the stairs attacked Ramesh, Dhanuskodi, Palanisamy and Gunasekar with the weapons. When they found Elumalai hiding. They tried to attack him, but Elumalai jumped down and fled from that place. The injured persons were shifted to hospital. At the Jipmer Hospital Selvam was declared brought dead. At Government Hospital Pondicherry, Thirunavukarasu died. Rest of the injured were treated as inpatients. Meanwhile Elumalai gave a complaint to the respondent police. The complaint was registered in Crime No.310 of 2013 and taken up for investigation.
Before the trial Court
3. On completion of investigation, final report was filed against Thambu and 18 others besides One Aadu Arumugam @ Arumugam shown as absconding accused. One of the accused Kumar @ Jayakumar died. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur took the final report on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2005. Later, case against Thambu, Saravanan and Aadu Arumugam @ Arumugam got split up from P.R.C.No.8 of 2005. New split up P.R.C.No.34 of 2008 was assigned. 16 accused in P.R.C.No.8/2005 were committed to the Court of session. The case was taken on file and numbered as S.C.No.128 of 2005. The trial ended in acquittal of all these accused. In the split up case 34 of 2003, the appellant Thambu was secured later. The 2 other absconding accused Saravanan and Aadu Arumugam were not able to be secured. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate split up the case against those two absconding accused. Assigned new P.R.C.No.21 of 2011. Committed A1, Thambu to the Court of Sessions for trial since the offences were exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
4. In the above background, against Thambu, the Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 326, 307 and 302 of I.P.C and tried in S.C.No.7 of 2012 by the I Additional Sessions Court, Tindivanam.
5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Marked 20 Exhibits and 6 material objects.
6. The trial Court acquitted him from charges under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. Convicted and sentenced him for offences under Section 147 of I.P.C to undergo 1 year R.I for offences under Section 148 of I.P.C to under 2 years R.I for offences under Section 452 of I.P.C to undergo 5 years R.I and for offences under Section 326 of I.P.C to undergo 10 years R.I.
7. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the above said judgment of conviction and sentence.
8. The appeal filed by the accused Thambu is on the ground that (a). when other 16 accused were acquitted in S.C.No.128 of 2005, based on the improvised, embellished testimony of the witnesses, in the split up case the trial Court has convicted this appellant ignoring the fundamental principle of Criminal jurisprudence.
(b). The alleged motive spoken by PW.1 not corroborated by his previous statement or in his deposition before the Court in S.C.No.128 of 2005. Even his own wife PW.6 has not whispered about the alleged motive or corroborated PW.1 in this aspect.
(c). The previous depositions of PW.1, PW.5, PW.7, PW.9 and PW.10 were confronted and the contradicti
