Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 831
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others - Appellant
Versus
V.P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi & Others - Respondent
Crl.A. (MD) No. 274 of 2011, Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 310 of 2014 & Crl.M.P. (MD) No. 11505 of 2016
Decided On : 21-03-2019
K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor, P. Andiraj, N. Ilango, N. Sekar, J. Anand Kumar, R. Sankarasubbu, R. Sankarasubbu, Ilayaraja Kandasamy, K. Balasundaram, (died), V. Karthic, Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, A. Ramesh, M. Ajmal Khan, Sr. Counsels, P. Balasubramanian, T.J. Ebenezer Charles, S. Devasena, R. Venkateswaran, S. Pakalavan, J. Senthil Kumaraiah, M. Natarajan, S.M.A. Jinnah, T. Sugadev, Rupert J. Barnabas, K. Viralinathan, N. Ananthapadmanaban (appointed by Court), C. Muthu Saravanan, Amicus Curiae, Advocates.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 -147, 148, 149, 217 , 221, 302, 436 and 439 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 293 , 451 , 452 and 164 -Explosive Substances Act - Sections 4 and 5 - Evidence Act - Section 56 and 57 - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage And Loss) Act, 1992 - Section 4 – Offence of murder - Rioting,armed with dangerous weapons – Charged – Acquittal - Challenged - Succession battle erupted in the D.M.K. between Messrs sons of then Chief Minister - On newspaper published the results of a series of opinion polls conducted by A.C Neilsen and Co. which suggested thathad greater public approval as political successor of than his elder brothe - This publication infuriated the supporters that protests were staged in different parts of city - Newspaper and the results of the opinion polls have been marked - office of is housed in a building situated in Melur Road, within jurisdiction of Otha kadai Police Station - Pursuant to publication of the poll results on infuriated supporters started protesting near Dinakaran office in batches by burning copies of daily and raising slogans condemning the Dinakaran newspaper and its promoters and hailing Policemen were posted in large numbers near Dinakaran office – Held, Trial Court is directed to secure accused convicted hereinabove, except @ (A1) and commit them to prison to undergo the aforesaid sentences - Registry is directed to send ten true copies of this judgment to Trial Court so that free copies are furnished to convicted accused as and when they appear / are produced for committing them to prison - As regards@ (A1), Court direct the Registry to send two true copies of this judgment to Principal District and Sessions Court - Furnish him a free copy of this judgment and commit him to prison for undergoing sentence - Thereafter, Principal District and Sessions Judge, , shall retain photocopies of commitment to prison records on his file and send the originals to the Principal District and Sessions Judge - indifference shown by the police in failing to protect the lives of (D1), (D2) and (D3), Court impose vicarious liability and direct the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each to the families of bereaved, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Hence, Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 310 of 2014 stands closed - To sum up, Crl. A. (MD) No.274 of 2011 stands partly allowed and Crl.R.C. (MD) No.310 of 2014 stands closed.
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. Crl. A. (MD) No. 274 of 2011 is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, acquitting all the accused in S.C No.3 of 2009. Criminal Revision Case (MD) 310 of 2014 is filed by Poongodi, the mother of the deceased Vinoth Kumar (D1), assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 09.12.2009. In view of the commonality of issues involved, the decision in both cases shall be governed by this common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in these cases, we proceed to preface our judgment by setting out certain facts which are indisputably widely known to the public, and which we proceed to take judicial notice in terms of sections 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, we draw sustenance from the judgment of Chandrachud, J (as he then was) in Onkar Nath v. Delhi Administration [(1977) 2 SCC 611], wherein it was observed as under:
"6. One of the points urged before us is whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on 8-5-1974. Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Section 57 enumerates facts of which the Court "shall" take judicial notice and states that on all matters of public history, literature, science or art the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. The list of facts mentioned in Section 57 of which the Court can take judicial notice is not exhaustive and indeed the purpose of the section is to provide that the Court shall take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of which the Court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. Recognition of facts without formal proof is a matter of expediency and no one has ever questioned the need and wisdom of accepting the existence of matters which are unquestionably within public knowledge. (See Taylor, 11th Edn., pp. 3-12; Wig more, Section 2571, footnote;Stephen's Digest, notes to Article 58; Whitley Stokes' Anglo-Indian Codes, Vol. II, p. 887.) Shutting the judicial eye to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to commonsense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wasteful ritual. No court therefore insists on formal proof, by evidence, of notorious facts of history, past or present. The date of poll, the passing away of a man of eminence and events that have rocked the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof. Accordingly, the courts below were justified in assuming, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on 5-5-1974 and that a strike paralysing the civic life of the Nation was undertaken by a section of workers on 8-5-1974."
3. The Tamil daily "Dinakaran" was founded in Madurai by Mr.K.P Kandasamy in 1977. In 2005, the newspaper was acquired from Mr. Kandaswamy's son Mr. K.P.K Kumaran by the Sun Network. The Sun Network is a mass media conglomerate founded by Mr.Kalanithi Maran in 1991. Mr. Kalanithi Maran is the Chairman of Sun Network and is the son of the former Union Minister late Mr. Murasoli Maran and grand-nephew of the former Chief Minister late Mr. M. Karunanidhi of the D.M.K.
4. In May 2004, Mr.Dayanidhi Maran, brother of Mr. Kalanithi Maran, contested and won the Parliamentary elections from the Chennai Central Constituency on a DMK ticket. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Kalanithi Maran was invited to be
