Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2922
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Metha Diwan - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai - Respondent
Crl. A.(MD) No.528 of 2017
Decided On : 12-11-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Baalasundharam.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Chandrasekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 – India Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120 - Charge sheet - Investigation - Aggrieved by order of Additional District and Sessions Judge and Appellant has preferred present Criminal Appeal before this Court During pendency of appeal Court by its order had suspended substantive sentence of imprisonment and Appellant is on bail now Initially re were two accused persons against whom Trial was conducted before Court below and during pendency of Trial had died and charges against him stood abated – Held Cross examination mo r of deceased it could be seen that several cases are pending against deceased and though it was stated by that all those cases are foisted cases it cannot be ruled out that no case is pending against deceased also stated in his cross that deceased was a habitual offender and he was facing criminal cases both in and Madurai - There therefore in our considered opinion Police having failed to trace out real culprit had falsely implicated appellant into alleged occurrence Apposite to state here that several witnesses in this case had turned hostile and weakened prosecution case and therefore benefit of doubt must be extended to accused Apart from above evidences adduced on side prosecution appear to be not genuine and statement obtained from accused under Section cannot be used as to bridge broken chain of events and circumstances so as to prove guilt of accused and if this practice is allowed all cases will naturally end in conviction only as it is duty of Court to find out fact and at same time it is for Police to find out truth Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 19.05.2015 in S.C.No.124 of 2014 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and E.C.Court, Pudukkottai and set aside the same and acquit the appellant by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
The Appellant / A2 has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and E.C.Court, Pudukkottai made in S.C.No.124 of 2014 dated 19.05.2015, convicting and sentencing the Appellant as follows:
| Sl. No. | Rank of the Accused | Offences for which convicted | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 1. | A2 | Section 120(b) of IPC | Two Years Rigorous Imprisonment - Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/-in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment |
2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and E.C.Court, Pudukkottai, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated 17.01.2018, had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment and thereby, the Appellant is on bail now.
3. Initially, there were two accused persons against whom the Trial was conducted before the Court below and during pendency of the Trial, A1 had died and the charges against him stood abated.
4. The case of the prosecution:
The deceased and one Dhanalakshmi fell in love with each other, pursuant to which, the father of Dhanalakshmi left his daughter in one of his relatives' house. When the said Dhanalakshmi returned to her parental house due to her illness, the deceased, on coming to know of her arrival, visited her house and forcibly took her away from the house, inspite of warning given by her relatives and friends, including accused persons. Subsequently, the appellant herein, infuriated by the act of the deceased, is said to have hatched conspiracy with A1 to do away with the deceased.
4.1. On 16.03.2014 at about 1:30 am, A1 & A2 are said to have attacked the deceased and they indiscriminately caused cut injuries with an Aruval and thereby caused the instantaneous death of the deceased. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, had suspected the involvement of the accused persons in the murder of his son and had given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.13) on 16.03.2014 at about 06.45 am. Based on the complaint received from P.W.1, an FIR was registered (Ex.P.7) under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of IPC and by way of alteration report (Ex.P.17), the offences were altered into the one of Section 302 IPC.
5. After a detailed investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in P.R.C.No.29 of 2014 for offences under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC and was subsequently, committed to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused, had examined 17 witnesses, marked 22 documents and exhibited 13 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that though P.W.1 had named five persons in the alleged occurrence, excluding the name of the appellant, it is not known as to why the prosecution had deleted those names from the array of accused persons. There is no cogent reason or material adduced on the side of the prosecution for implicating the appellant in the alleged occurrence.
6.1. It
