Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Subramani and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 160 and 335 of 2012
Decided On : 20-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Santhakumari and D.A. Sugumar
For the Respondents:Kritika Kamal P., Government Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 148,302,324,352 and 294(b) - Appeal Against Conviction - Offence of Murder - Accused and victims hail from same village - Vijayarangan wished to marry - But she loved and married him - In this connection there was animosity simmering between family members - At about and his brother in law while proceeding in Hero Splendor motorcycle hit Muthu and coming in bicycle - Soon after this incident at about and other accused to house of Malar who is sister of and started abusing family members of - Hearing this his sons and came to spot - They all were indiscriminately attacked by accused with wooden logs - Who was admitted in hospital died - Complaint of was registered by respondent police in Crime - Complaint of against was registered in Crime - After completion of investigation complaint of was closed as mistake of fact - Held, Trial Court failed to consider suppression of material facts - Delay in lodging complaint and delay in forwarding FIR to court has given room to falsehood - When both side has sustained injuries and scene of crime was in front of house present case and case in counter ought to have been investigated properly - As per police Standing Order Investigating Officer ought to have placed before trial Court all materials including FIR in counter case statements of injured and wound certificates for trial court to proper appreciation and to arrive at right decision - In a compliant and counter-complaint such as this obviously arising out of same transaction when prosecution proceeds on basis of complaint Court think it is duty of prosecution to exhibit counter-complaint through police officer who recorded it and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on opposite side also and before court a definite case which they ask it to accept - Court must deprecate prosecution in such cases accepting in to one complaint and examining only witnesses who support it and give no explanation at all for injuries caused to other side - Truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary to enable it to arrive at truth and a just decision - If in present case was in opinion of investigating police a false complaint laid for defence purposes and injuries on self-inflicted prosecution should none less have filed medical certificate asking court to reject them - Fact that a complaint was filed that it was treated as false or undetectable and that did have injuries on his person are relevant facts which prosecution itself should have placed before court in first instance instead of waiting for defence to disclose them - Criminal Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.
1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, passed in S.C. No. 45 of 2010 dated 20.02.2012.
2. The accused and victims hail from same village. Vijayarangan (A-6) wished to marry Vani (PW-5). But she loved Sankar (PW-1) and married him on 21.01.2008. In this connection, there was animosity simmering between the family members. On 23.06.2009 at about 10.30 pm, Sankar (P.W. 1) and his brother in law Ranjith while proceeding in the Hero Splendor motorcycle, hit Muthu (A-1) and Rajendiran coming in the bicycle. Soon after this incident, at about 10.45 pm Muthu(A-1) and other accused (A-2 to A-6) came to the house of Malar (PW-2) who is the sister of Vani (PW-5) and started abusing the family members of Margabandu (deceased). Hearing this, Margabandu (deceased) his sons Sankar (PW-1), Babu (PW-3) and Ganesan (PW-6) came to the spot. They all were indiscriminately attacked by the accused A-1 to A-6 with wooden logs. Margabandu who was admitted in the hospital died on 29.06.2008. The complaint of Sankar (PW-1) was registered by the respondent police on 24.09.2008 in Crime No. 227/2008. The complaint of Shanthi (A-5) against Margabandu (deceased), Sankar (PW-1), Ganesan (PW-6), Babu and Ranjith for assaulting Shanthi (A-5) and Vijayarangan(A-6) was registered in Crime No. 228/08 on 25.06.2008. After completion of investigation, the complaint of Shanthi (A-5) was closed as mistake of fact.
3. Based on the material records placed by the investigation officer, the trial court framed the following 6 charges against Muthu (A-1), Subramani (A-2), Tilagavathi (A-3), Veeramani (A-4), Shanthi (A-5) and Vijayarangan(A-6).
Sl no Accused Charges
1 A-1 to A-6 Section 148 IPC.
2 A-1 Section 294(b) IPC
3 A-1 to A-3 Section 302 IPC
4 A-2 to A-6 Section 352 IPC
5 A-4 to A-6 Section 302 r/w 149 IPC
4. After examining 16 prosecution witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 16), one defence witness (D.W. 1), 19 prosecution exhibits (Exs. P.1 to P.19), 4 defence documents (Exs. D.1 to D.4) and 6 material objects (M.Os. 1 to 6), the trial Court held A-1 to A-6 guilty of offence under section 148 IPC; A-1 guilty of offence under sections 324 and 294(b) IPC; A-2 guilty of offence under section 324 and A-3 to A-6 guilty of offences under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal in C.A. No. 160/2012 is preferred by Accused 2, 4, 5 and 6. Appeal in C.A. No. 335/2012 is preferred by A.3. All the appellants were found guilty of offences under section 148 IPC. A-1 and A-2 were found guilty of offence under section 324 IPC. A-3 to A-6 were found guilty of offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.
6. The Learned counsel for the appellants reading the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 the de facto complainant, PW-2 to whom the accused persons alleged to have first picked quarrel, PW- 16 the Investigating Officer would submit that, the incident occurred opposite to the house of Shanthi (A-5). The de facto complainant (P.W. 1) and his family members were the aggressors. They all came with weapons and attacked A -5 and A-6. Knowing that, the other accused came to rescue them. In the fight, Margabandu fell down on the cement floor of Kalathumedu and sustained head injuries. The Doctor Sivaraj (PW-13) who treated Margabandu on 24.06.2008 did not find any external injuries, on his head. In the accident report Ex P-12, only a contusion on the right forehead and bleeding from nose was found. The patient has reported giddiness and he was in semi-conscious state.
7. The defence exhibits, Exs. D-1 to D-4 disclose the fact that on 25.06.2008 at about 11.00 pm, A-5 and A-6 were assaulted by Margabandu and others. They came drunk and quarrelled with A-5. In the assault, A-5 and A-6 sustained injuries. DW-1 - Doctor Ravichandran treated them as out patients in the Government Hospital, Vellore and issued the wound certificates Exs. D-3 and
