Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 888
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. Raja, B. Pugalendhi, JJ.
M. Prabakaran – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by it’s The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 131 of 2018
Decided On : 22-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :I. Pinaygash, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.K. Ramakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
EC Act - Criminal Procedure - Section 374 - Section 302 IPC, Section 294(b) IPC - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 302 IPC and Section 294(b) IPC in the context of a familial dispute resulting in the death of the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the conduct of the accused, to determine the guilt of the appellant. The court also referred to legal principles related to the reliability of witness testimonies and the impact of acquittal of co-accused on the guilt of the appellant.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a familial dispute resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, while the co-accused was acquitted. Witness testimonies were central to the case, with discrepancies in the evidence and the reliability of witnesses being key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and medical reports. The court also considered the acquittal of the co-accused and the impact of witness reliability on the case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, discrepancies in the evidence, and the impact of the acquittal of the co-accused on the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the evidence of a witness, even if declared hostile, can be relied upon to the extent it is found to be dependable. The court also emphasized that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically absolve the guilt of the other accused, and minor contradictions in witness testimonies can be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, altering the offence to Section 304 (II) IPC and sentencing the appellant to four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which, three months rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
B. Pugalendhi, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the judgment dated 07.11.2017 in S.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court for E.C. Act), Pudukottai District in Crime No.252 of 2012 on the file of the respondent Police and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused No.1.)
1. This appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Special Court for EC Act), Pudukottai in S.C.No.43 of 2013, dated 07.11.2017, in and by which, the appellant/accused No.1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo a life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.
2. The appellant [accused No.1] along with his father Muthusamy /accused No.2 was tried before the trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 294(b) IPC. The trial Court by the judgment impugned in this appeal, acquitted accused No.2 from the charge under Section 302 IPC and also acquitted this appellant from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC. However, this appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. As against the conviction and sentence the appellant/accused No.1 preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
3.1. Accused No.2 Muthusamy and the deceased Murugaiyah are brothers. PW2 is their mother. This appellant / accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2. They were having two house properties and those house properties were partitioned between the accused and the deceased, as the tiled house to the deceased Murugaiyah and the thatched housed to accused No.2 Muthusamy. On the date of occurrence, on 29.07.2012, at about 9.30pm, there was a quarrel between the deceased Murugaiyah and his wife Tmt.Selvam [PW1]. The deceased was scolding his wife. But, accused No.2 misunderstanding that the deceased was scolding him, questioned the deceased as to why he was scolding him and there arose a wordy quarrel between the deceased and accused No.2, in which, by referring the improper partition on sharing of houses, accused No.2 is said to have assaulted the deceased with stick on his head. Accused No.1, son of accused No.2 also intervened in the quarrel and attacked the deceased with iron grill gate [MO2] on his head. In the incident, the deceased sustained head injury and PW1 and a neighbour [PW5] took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Pudukottai, from where he was referred to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur.
3.2. When the accused was taking treatment in the Government Hospital at Thanjavur, he died on 31.07.2012. In the meantime, on a medical intimation received from the Government hospital, Thanjavur on 30.07.2012, at about 12.57 p.m., Tmt.R.Neela [PW14], Sub Inspector of Police of Thirukokarnam, Police Station went to the Government Hospital at Thanjavur and recorded the statement [ExP1] from PW1 / wife of the deceased at about 6.30 p.m., returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.252 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. She also went to the place of occurrence on the next day morning, i.e., on 31.07.2012 at 6.30 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar [ExP2] in the presence of the witnesses PW7 and PW8. She also recovered an iron grill gate [MO2] found in the place of occurrence, returned to the Police Station and recorded the statements from PW1 and PW2. She also arrested accused No.2 at about 11.00 a.m. and arrested accused No.1 at about 4.00 p.m. The deceased, who was taking treatment in the hospital, died on 31.07.2012 at about 7.55 p.m. and therefore, PW14 referred the file to the Inspector of Police [PW15].
3.3. PW15 took over the investigation on 31.07.2012, altered the charge to Section 302 IPC and forwarded the alteration report [ExP15] to the Court. He also conducted an inquest in the Govern
