M. Rajkumar vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Rajkumar & Another – Appellants
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore – Respondents
Crl.A. Nos. 19 & 55 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 16099 of 2019 & 3243 of 2020
Decided on : 31-07-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :ARL. Sundaresan, R. Vivekanandan, R. Vijayakumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A. Natarajan, State Public Prosecutor assisted by P. Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), M. Mohammed Muzammil, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 363-A, 109 r/w. 363-A, 417, 376, 304, 201 r/w. 304, 465, 304 r/w. 109 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) and 207 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act - Section 24(1) - Offence of Kidnapping or maiming a minor - Rape – Criminal conspiracy - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Charged - Praying to set aside the judgment of conviction - P.W.1 brought her minor daughter along with A5 to and handed her over to custody of A1, an ex-MLA and a member of DMK political party, to work in his house and also to give her better education, besides she would have company of A1’s minor daughter - A2 arranged for lodging of P.W.1 and his daughter at Perambalur - Next day, P.W.1 left his daughter in house of A1 and left for Kerala - Girl stayed in house of A1 under his custody - Girl fell ill and she was admitted in private hospital viz., SKS Hospital, , by A1’s wife and mother, as girl was suffering from severe breathing problem - Since health condition of patient was serious, P.W.26, doctor who treated girl and hospital authorities advised them to take her to Government Hospital - However, on request of A1’s wife to give atleast first aid to girl, P.W.26 gave first aid - P.W.27, X-Ray Technician, working under P.W.26, took X-Ray of the deceased – Held, evidence relied upon by prosecution in this case lead to many other hypothesis - Merely because the case acquired a character of sensationalism and became sensational at relevant point of time, this Court cannot shirk its responsibility in searching for legal evidence - Court cannot record a finding merely based on imaginary possibilities in evidence of prosecution - Admittedly, several doctors have been examined by prosecution in this case, but they have not been declared hostile - Even they have not been confronted with post-mortem report which is mainly relied upon by prosecution - Moreover, it is seen from their evidence that, there is not even a suggestion, whatsoever, attributing motive, against doctors for such unfavourable evidence - Court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to prove charges framed against accused beyond doubt - Hence, benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused and accordingly, conviction and sentence of accused have to be set aside - In fine, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence, datedpassed by Sessions Judge, Special Court for cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in S.C.No.404 of 2018, is set aside - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.12.2018, in S.C.No.404 of 2018, on the file of the Special Court for cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.)

1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed with a common prayer to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.12.2018, passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in S.C.No.404 of 2018.

2. Originally, seven accused were prosecuted for various offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 363-A, 109 r/w. 363-A, 417, 376, 304, 201 r/w. 304, 465, 304 r/w. 109 IPC and Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act r/w. Section 109 IPC. The trial Court, by impugned judgment, has acquitted A3, A4, A6 and A7 of all the charges framed against them. The charges against A5 were abated, as A5 died during the course of trial. A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:

Accused	Provision under which convicted	Sentence
A1	Section 376 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
A1	Section 304 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
A2	Section 417 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for one year and also a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
A1 & A2	Section 120-B IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and also a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

The sentence of A1 and A2 shall run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A1 has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.19 of 2019 and A2 has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.55 of 2019 before this Court.

4. The factual matrix leading to filing of these two Criminal appeals in brief, is as follows:-

4.1. The deceased minor girl, aged 15 years, daughter of P.W.1 and P.W. 2, was residing with her parents at Kerala.

4.2. On 22.06.2012, P.W.1 brought her minor daughter along with A5 to Perambalur and handed her over to the custody of A1, an ex-MLA of Perambalur and a member of DMK political party, to work in his house and also to give her better education, besides she would have the company of A1’s minor daughter. A2 arranged for lodging of P.W.1 and his daughter at Perambalur. Next day, P.W.1 left his daughter in the house of A1 at Perambalur and left for Kerala. The girl stayed in the house of A1 under his custody from 23.06.2012 to 28.06.2012.

4.3. On 28.06.2012, the girl fell ill and she was admitted in private hospital viz., SKS Hospital, Perambalur, by A1’s wife and mother, as the girl was suffering from severe breathing problem. Since the health condition of the patient was serious, P.W.26, the doctor who treated the girl and the hospital authorities advised them to take her to Government Hospital. However, on the request of A1’s wife to give atleast first aid to the girl, P.W.26 gave first aid. P.W.27, X-Ray Technician, working under P.W.26, took X-Ray of the deceased. P.W.28, Lab Technician working under P.W.26, took blood test of the girl in the hospital. The deceased girl also informed her name to P.W.28. P.W.29, a Nurse working under P.W.26, also saw the deceased in the hospital.

4.4. Since the girl’s health condition was worsening, she was discharged from SKS Hospital, Perambalur, and was taken to Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College Hospital, Perambalur, in the midnight of the same day, i.e. on 28.06.2012.

4.5. P.W.30 was the Medical Officer working in Dhanalak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Mad) 835

Cases Referred (3)