IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
M. Rahmathullah and Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 114 of 2014
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Deceased – Prosecution – Learned counsel appearing for appellants that during pendency of appeal case passed away was not denied by learned Government Advocate deceased Kalifullah is brother of Mohammed is wife of deceased – Four months prior to occurrence deceased came to house of for doing painting works brother-in-law of PW-1 and he is also doing painting work was standing near a tea stall came to shop to get cigarette deceased came there and demanded balance of wage payable for which replied that he has no money and slapped on his cheek and there was a quarrel – Held, FIR in reaching the Court is not explained according to investigating officer, he received strangely – FIR reaches learned Judicial Magistrate only which is evident from endorsement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate enormous delay hours in forwarding FIR to Court. PW-14 admits that court is situated away from Police Station and it will take half an hour to reach Court doubtful – Whether FIR would have come into existence at time as it is projected by prosecution is seen that all records and statements reached Court with a considerable delay – Criminal appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. The appellants/A1 and A2 were charged for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) IPC. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 25.02.2014, though found the appellants not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) IPC, found the appellants guilty for the offence under 304(1) I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 10 years RI each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo 6 month SI each. Against the said conviction and sentence, this present appeal has been filed.
2. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that during pendency of the appeal, A2 in this case passed away on 10.02.2015. This fact was not denied by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) also. In view of the same, this appeal abates in respect of A2.
3. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
(ii) PW-14 Seran, Inspector of Police received the complaint registered a case in crime No. 87 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P13, FIR. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P14 observation mahazer, Ex.P14 rough sketch in the presence of witnesses and recovered M.O.1 blood stained soil and M.O.2 sample soil under Ex.P4 mahazer. He examined the witnesses, recorded their statements. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Kalifullah. Ex.P15 is the inquest report and sent the dead body to the hospital through PW-12 Head Constable along with Ex.P5 requisition. At 13.00 hours, PW-14 arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses PW-11 Mohammed Asif and Kanikandan and recorded his confession statement and on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.11, he recovered M.O.3 mobile phone of A2 under Ex.P10 mahazer. He sent the accused for judicial remand and sent the material objects to the Court along with Form 95. He collected the call details of M.O.3 mobile p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.