Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Bakkiaraj & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Q.Branch, CID, Villupuram - Respondent
CRL.A. Nos. 655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
Decided On : 08-06-2020
For the Appellants:K. Gandhikumar, Ilayaraja Kandasamy, Advocates. For the Respondent: M. Prabhavathy, APP.
The judgment establishes the importance of interconnected evidence, including witness testimonies, forensic reports, and confessions, in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases involving serious offenses such as the use of explosive substances.
Headnote:
Explosive Substances Act - Conviction under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - S.C.No.2 of 2004 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 120-B IPC, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 447 IPC, Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992 - The judgment discusses the application and interpretation of these acts and sections in convicting the appellants for their involvement in the blast of a High Tension Electric Tower.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellants for their involvement in the blast of a High Tension Electric Tower, based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic reports, and confessions, and convicted them under various sections of the Explosive Substances Act and other relevant provisions.
Issues: The issues revolve around the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence, the identification of the appellants, the use of explosive substances, and the motive behind the blast.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, forensic reports, confessions, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the evidence and the motive behind the offense.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the trial Court's judgment convicting the appellants is upheld, directing them to serve the remaining period of their sentence if they are not in custody.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in C.A.No.655 of 2007: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Exclusive Trial of Bomblast Cases, dated 18.07.2007, Chennai at Poonamallee.
C.A.No.334 of 2008: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of Bomb blast cases, Chennai @ Poonamallee, Chennai in S.C.No.2 of 2004 and acquit the appellant.)
Common Judgment
1. The appellants in C.A.No.655 of 2007 are A1 to A3 and the appellant in C.A.No.334 of 2008 is A4. Both Appeals arise out of Conviction and Sentence rendered by the Special Judge, Exclusive trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee in S.C.No.2 of 2004 dated 18.07.2007.
2. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted them as follows:-
(i) The appellant/A1 was convicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(ii) The appellant/A2 was convicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(iii) The appellant/A3 was convicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(iv) The appellant/A4 was convicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 o
