SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2132

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIJAYA K.TAHILRAMANI, G.R. SWAMINATHAN, JJ.
P. Kalaiselvam - Appellant
Vs.
State rep.by Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District - Respondent
Crl A(Md)Nos. 262 & 263 of 2013, 33 & 218 of 2014 And 493 of 2017 And Crl Mp (Md) No.11209 of 2017 In Crl A(Md) No.493 of 2017
Decided On : 07-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Andiraj for Mr. Manikandan
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Chandrasekar

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 – Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Offence of Murder – Injury - Rigorous imprisonment - Complaint was registered as Crime Inspector of Police Station took up investigation and visited scene of occurrence - In presence and one, observation and Rough Sketch were prepared had signed in the Observation same day investigating officer collected Blood stained sand, Sand without blood stain and newspaper - Inquest was conducted between Postmortem was conducted Doctor opined that the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries and issued postmortem report examined and came to know that near Banana Plantation of all accused conspired to murder - Therefore FIR was altered from Section 302 and the offence under Section 120 B was added and the alteration report was sent to Judicial Magistrate - Investigation Officer examined various witnesses and recorded their statements – Held, As rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for testimony of these two witnesses cannot inspire confidence of this Court - If these two witnesses had actually overheard the conversation said to have taken place among the accused, they would have certainly alerted the deceased or his associates - Admittedly these two witnesses did not do so - They also did not inform the local police - More than anything else witnesses claimed to have overheard the said conversation at a distinct - Accused were said to have been standing at a height of about five feet from spot where these two witnesses were present - If that be so presence of these two witnesses would not have gone unnoticed - Court find it difficult to believe that the accused would have assembled in an open place in forenoon and loudly proclaimed their intention to commit murder of - During the cross examination probing questions were put person from whom he was proposing to buy paddy filed. replied that he intended to purchase paddy field of - He however admitted during cross examination that did not know the house of and had never seen him - It was also admitted that they returned even without seeing paddy field in question - On a careful reading of testimony of these two witnesses Court have no hesitation to come to conclusion that they had deposed falsely - Once their testimony is eschewed out of consideration prosecution case has no leg to stand as against these three accused - Court therefore set aside the judgment dated file of the Sessions Judge insofar as the accused are concerned - Before parting with this case Court cannot help noting an unusual feature - On side of accused - Inspector of Police were examined as defense witnesses - They were also subjected to cross examination by prosecution - Was Special Sub Inspector of Police while was Sub Inspector of Police and was the Inspector of Police was examined as while was examined as - It is not known as to how they could have been examined on side of the defense – Petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

The appellants-original accused have preferred these criminal appeals against the judgments passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. The accused were originally six in number. One of them, namely, Shanmugavel died during the pendency of the proceedings. The appellants herein were committed to trial in SC No. 81 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. It was then made over to Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. After the examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC was over, the first accused Pichandi absconded. Therefore, the case against the first accused was split as SC No.81 A of 2010.

2. By judgment dated 27.07.2013 in SC No.81 of 2010, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused. The second accused was convicted under Section 120 B and Section 302 of IPC. He was to sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The life sentences of course were to run concurrently. The accused 3 to 5 were found guilty of offence under Section 120 B and each of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. After the first accused was secured, SC No.81 A of 2010 was taken up. He was also found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the punishment of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused were acquitted of the other charges. Questioning the conviction and sentence, the first accused filed Criminal Appeal (MD)No.493 of 2017, the second accused Crl A(MD)No.218 of 2014, the third accused Crl A(MD)No.262 of 2013, the fourth accused Crl A(MD)No.33 of 2014 while the fifth accused filed Crl A((MD)No.263 of 2013.

3. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under :

The accused have previous enmity with the deceased Sivasami and therefore wanted to do away with him. On coming to know that Sivasamy was at the Tea Shop of PW.2 Subbaiah Thevar, A1 and A2 namely Pichandi and Babu proceeded on a two wheeler to the occurrence spot on 14.07.2009 at about 07.00 A.M. Sivasamy was taking tea and reading a newspaper. He was sitting on the steps of the Tea Stall of P.W2. A1 and A2 yelled and ran towards him and hacked him on his right hand shoulder, neck, chest, right side of the left collar bone and on the left wrist and caused his instantaneous death. This was witnessed by the brothers of the deceased namely PW1 Gunasekaran and Sudalaikannu. P.W1 Gunasekaran and Sudalaikannu went to Melapalayam Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint at about 07.30 A.M.

4. The complaint was registered as Crime No.544 of 2009(Ex.P14 F.I.R). P.W 18, the Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station took up investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at about 09.00 A.M. In the presence of P.W5 Murugan and one Jeyaraman, observation mahazar Ex.P15 and Rough Sketch Ex.P16 were prepared. P.W 17 Esakki had signed in the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P15. At about 09.45 A.M on the same day, the investigating officer collected M.O 1 Blood stained sand, M.O.12 Sand without blood stain and M.O.13 newspaper. Inquest was conducted between 10.00 A.M and 12.15 P.M. Postmortem was conducted by P.W 11 at about 12.45 P.M. The Doctor opined that the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries and issued postmortem report Ex.P5. P.W 18 examined P.W 3 Sudalai Kannu and came to know that on 11.07.2009 at about 11.00 A.M near the Banana Plantation of Perumal Pandiyan all the accused conspired to murder Sivasamy. Therefore, FIR was altered from Section 302 and the offence under Section 120 B was added and the alteration report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Tirunelveli. Investigation Officer examined various witnesses and recorded their statements. By then, the first accused ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top