Vellankani(M/45), S/o Meiyappan, Lourd Nagar, Keelavasal, Thanjavur District. vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police Cantonment Police Station Trichy District

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2853

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Vellankani(M/45), S/o Meiyappan, Lourd Nagar, Keelavasal, Thanjavur District. – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police Cantonment Police Station Trichy District, - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.450 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Arun Prasad,
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 294(b), 326 & 302 - Criminal Procedure Code,1908 - Section 374(2) – investigation - F.I.R - Appellant were eking their livelihood by begging they were dividing collection amount among themselves Temple at and at that time there was some dispute among them dividing amount deceased has questioned accused persons and there was wordy quarrel and the accused persons are said to have abused deceased in filthy language appellant is said to have attacked deceased with a brick stone pasted with cement mortar on her cheek said to have attacked the deceased with a stone on back side of her head - When tried to intervene he is said to have been attacked using hands by accused persons and therefore he went away from scene of occurrence - After accused persons left scene of crime came back and saw deceased lying in an unconscious state stayed along with deceased and found her dead –Held, Prosecution as eyewitnesses it seen that they were staying at some distance from scene of occurrence - It true that prosecution has examined in order to prove availability of light in scene of occurrence - However what requires attention is were actually present in scene occurrence in his evidence does not state about presence scene of occurrence - That apart these persons have given an exaggerated version about incident which is more than what was stated evidence Both these witnesses have stated they watched incident and thereafter went back and slept - This conduct is also highly unnatural - If at all they were there in scene of occurrence would have been spoken - At least after the incident these two witnesses would have gone and checked status of deceased after she was attacked more particularly since they know deceased well and all of them are involved in profession of begging at the same spot near temple - Therefore very presence scene of occurrence is highly doubtful injuries are quite serious and those injuries have not been explained by prosecution this case - Appellant who was also a beggar has been planted in this case and respondent police found it easy to complete the investigation by showing the appellant and another accused person who is also a beggar as accused in this case Court prosecution has miserably failed to prove case against appellant beyond reasonable doubts - so-called eyewitnesses are all totally unbelievable and their conduct after alleged incident is unnatural - It will not be safe to sustain the conviction with such defective evidence that has been placed before this Court – Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Conviction of the Appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Trichirappali Division, Trichirappali S.C.No.71 of 2015, dated 17.10.2016, and acquit the appellant.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli made in S.C.No.71 of 2015, dated 17.10.2016.

2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:-

S. No.	Offense For the Appellants which convicted	Imprisonment	Fine
1	294(b) of I.P.C.	Three months Rigorous Imprisonment	_
2	324 of I.P.C.	Three years Rigorous Imprisonment	_
3	302 of I.P.C.	Life Imprisonment	Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three years

Case of the Prosecution in brief:

3. The appellant, Saravanan @ Kannan (A-2), deceased and P.W.1 were eking their livelihood by begging. On 10.07.2014, at about 11:00 p.m. they were dividing the collection amount among themselves near Anjaneyar Temple at Kallukuzhi and at that time, there was some dispute among them in dividing the amount. The deceased has questioned the accused persons and there was a wordy quarrel and the accused persons are said to have abused the deceased and P.W.1 in filthy language. The appellant is said to have attacked the deceased with a brick stone pasted with cement mortar on her cheek and A-2 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stone on the back side of her head. When P.W.1 tried to intervene, he is said to have been attacked using hands by the accused persons and therefore, he went away from the scene of occurrence. After the accused persons left the scene of crime, P.W.1 came back and saw the deceased lying in an unconscious state. P.W.1 stayed along with the deceased till about 5:30 a.m. on 11.07.2017 and found her dead. Thus, the appellant and A-2 are said to have caused the death of the deceased by attacking her in the manner described herein above.

Complaint and materials collected during the course of the investigation:

4. P.W.1 went to the Cantonment Police Station and gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.15) at about 6:00 a.m. When the complaint was taken on file, an F.I.R (Ex.P.18) came to be registered in Crime No.576 of 2014 for offense under Sections 294(b), 326 & 302 of I.P.C. An express F.I.R was handed over to the Head Constable (P.W.8) and he reached with the express F.I.R to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tiruchirappalli at about 12:00 noon.

4.1. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.16) and he came to the scene of occurrence at about 7:00 a.m. on 11.07.2014. In the presence of witness (P.W.4), he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and also the rough sketch (Ex.P.19). He also recovered the material objects from the scene of crime (M.O.6 & M.O.7) and this was sent to the Court under Form 95. The Investigation Officer proceeded to conduct the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatars and he prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.21). He had sent P.W.1 to the government hospital for taking treatment and P.W.1 is said to have been treated by P.W.10 and the AR Doctor was examined as P.W.12 and the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P.11.

4.2. The Investigation Officer, thereafter, had handed over the dead body to the Head Constable (P.W.7) with a requisition for conducting the postmortem and to hand over the body to the relatives after the completion of the postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.14 and he had given the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.13). The postmortem Doctor gave a final opinion (Ex.P.14) to the effec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2853

Cases Referred (2)