Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Ramu & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police, A. Pallipatty Police Station, Dharmapuri – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2019
For the Appellant :V.M. Ravichandran for M/s. Durai Gunasekaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R. Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the conduct of the accused to establish guilt, and the rejection of the defense's alibi.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 324, 506 (ii), 307 and 302 r/w 120(b), 109 and 34 of IPC - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the credibility of witnesses, and the accused's alibi. The court analyzes the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the conduct of the accused and dismisses the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the partition of family property, leading to a fatal assault on the deceased Chinnasamy by the appellants and others. The prosecution presented evidence of the assault, including witness testimonies and medical reports. The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to a property dispute and presented an alibi for one of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence, and the alibi presented by the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the conduct of the accused to establish their guilt. The court also rejected the alibi presented by the defense based on the evidence and witness testimonies.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court directed the trial court to take appropriate steps to secure the appellants to undergo the remaining sentence, and the police to secure the appellants forthwith. Additionally, the court directed the concerned officials to take appropriate action against those involved in fabricating false evidence and documents.
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.221 of 2014 by Judgment dated 03.02.2016.)
1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.221 of 2014 dated 03.02.2016. The appellants are arrayed as A1 and A2. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.114 of 2011 against the appellants and three others. On completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed a charge sheet before the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Dharmapuri for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 324, 506 (ii), 307 and 302 r/w 120(b), 109 and 34 of IPC.
2. During the trial, the charges against the 3rd accused viz., Krishnan was abated, who reported dead on 28.07.2012. On conclusion of trial, the Court below had convicted the 1st appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324 of IPC sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. As against the 2nd appellant, for the offence under Section 302 IPC convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.221 of 2014, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
3. As against the 1st accused for the offence under Section 148, 448, 506(ii) and as against the 2nd accused for the offence under Section 148, 448, 506(ii), 324 and as against the 4th accused for the offence under Section 148, 448, 506(ii), 324, 302 r/w 34 and as against the 5th accused for the offence under Section 148, 448, 506 (ii), 324, 307, 302 r/w Section 34, the trial Court acquitted the said accused giving benefit of doubts.
4. The background facts, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:
4.1. The defacto complainant [PW.1] Sivagami is the wife of deceased Chinnaswamy, whose father had two wives. The deceased is the first wife’s son and one Kaaliyappan is the second wife’s son. The accused 1 to 3 are the sons of said Kaaliyappan, the 4th accused is the wife of Kaaliyappan and the 5th accused is the wife of the 1st appellant. There seems to be some dispute between them over the partition of family property.
4.2. On 05.06.2011 at about 12.00 p.m, there had been a quarrel between the deceased Chinnasamy and the 1st appellant/A1. Thereafter, at about 12.30 p.m., the 1st appellant along with the other accused, with an intention to murder the deceased Chinnasamy, armed with deadly weapons, forcibly entered into the house of Chinnasamy and assaulted him, thereby he sustained injuries and died. The deceased, his wife [PW1] and his daughter [PW.2] were attacked by the 1st appellant with Koduval, the 2nd appellant with wooden log. The 4th accused with Aruvamanai and the 5th accused with wooden stick. The 1st appellant attacked the deceased in his chin with Koduval, the 2nd appellant attacked on his head and the 3rd accused attacked him on his face. The accused 1 to 3 had forcibly dragged the deceased and dashed his head on the wall, thereby causing the death of the deceased. When PW.1 and PW.2 intervened to rescue the deceased Chinnasamy, they were also attacked by them.
4.3. In support of the prosecution, they have examined PW.1 to PW.16 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and 11 materials objects were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW3 were examined and marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D18.
4.4. The available evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:
(a) PW.1 Sivagami, the wife of the deceased Chinnasamy states that on 05.06.2011, at about 12.00 p.m, the 1st appellant, after attending the marriage of one Sankar, came to her h
