Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subbiah, R. Pongiappan, JJ.
Lalitha & Others – Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Erode – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2020
For the Appellant :B.M. Subash, B. Mohan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: M. Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 – India Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 380, 302 r/w 201 and 302 r/w 34 –Evidence Act - Section 106 - Investigation - Payment of fine amount - When at time of occurrence accused was preparing dinner and at same time deceased was watching - After hearing hue and cry of deceased accused rushed to hall and found four unknown Hindi speaking persons assaulting deceased and after pouring chili powder on her opened bureau and stolen away - Said story was told by accused appellant herein - Immediately after hearing same rushed to police station and lodged complaint – Held, Already observed it is not disputed that witnesses examined on side of prosecution as are related to deceased - Though they were related with deceased and accused they have not entered into scene of occurrence when of offence was committed - According to prosecution are witnesses present immediately after occurrence and saw accused - This will create one of circumstances which is against case of prosecution - Other circumstance is in respect to recovery of gold jewels recovery of blood stained pillow cover and recovery spanner - Evidence given by investigation officer has not been corroborated through who has attested in confession statement given by accused - Absolutely there was no reason as to why investigation officer suspected accused - Further in respect to motive attributed reason stated by prosecution is nothing but flimsy – Court are unable to understand that after giving birth to two children whether accused would go level of murdering her husband - Though it was stated on side of prosecution that accused and accused are having illegal intimacy said conduct has not been proved on side of prosecution by producing relevant materials - Material evidences produced on side of prosecution is not in form to connect chain circumstances - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
R. Pongiappan, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 05.12.2017 in S.C.No.96 of 2015.)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.96 of 2015 dated 05.12.2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. The appellants are arrayed as A1 to A3 in the abovesaid case. They stood charged for the offence under Sections 302, 380, 302 r/w 201 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. All the accused denied the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, they were put on trial of the charges. After full fledged trial, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, found the accused guilty of the following offences and sentenced as hereunder.
| Offence | Sentence |
| Under Section 302 IPC | A1 and A2 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 380 IPC | A1 and A3 were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC | A1 was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC | A3 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. |
The trial Court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused are before this Court, by way of filing the present criminal appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(i) PW1-Thangavel and PW5-Jeeva are the parents of the deceased Srinivasan. On the fateful day on 17.11.2012 at about 10.00 am alongwith PW5 and with his grandchild Shalini, PW1 went to Thiruchengode for attending the marriage. On the same day at about 6.45 pm, when PW1 was in the marriage function, PW4-Venkatesan, who is the brother-in-law of PW1 contacted him through Cell phone and told that four unknown hindi speaking persons, after assaulting the deceased Srinivasan, had stolen away the gold jewels, from the house of the deceased. Immediately, after hearing the same, alongwith PW5, PW1 rushed to the house of the deceased and found that the dead body of the deceased Srinivasan, was lying in the hall in a pool of blood. He has sustained head injury.
(ii) On enquiry, PW1 came to know that when at the time of occurrence, the 1st accused was preparing the dinner and at the same time, the deceased was watching TV. After hearing the hue and cry of the deceased, the 1st accused rushed to the hall and found four unknown hindi speaking persons assaulting the deceased and after pouring chilli powder on her, opened the bureau and stolen away the M.O.3, M.O.4 and M.O.6. The said story was told by 1st accused / 1st appellant herein. Immediately, after hearing the same, PW1 rushed to the police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.
(iii) On receipt of the complaint from PW1, on 17.11.2012 at about 11.00 pm, PW13-Mr.Senthil Kumar, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.692 of 2012 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. After the registration of the case, he handed over the case records to PW14-Mr.S.Ramesh for investigation. Ex.P24 is the printed FIR.
(iv) PW14, the then Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station, received the case records from PW13 and took up the same for investigation. He made arrangements for taking photographs in the
