SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
Thanga and Others – Appellants
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 264 of 2018
Decided On : 10-03-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C. Deivasigamani.
For the Respondent: M. Prabhavathi.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, 302, 307, 323, 148 and 149 – Rigorous Imprisonment – FIR – Evidence – Deceased – Case of Prosecution as culled out from evidence deceased in this case is one is injured witness. He is brother of deceased were rearing cocks in their house to engage them in cockfight accused in this case are also residents of same Street – There was previous enmity between accused persons and deceased in respect of conducting cock fight – Held, Case where, by examining eye-witnesses prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Court find any ground to reduce sentence imposed on appellants/A1 and A2 by trial Court occurrence accused persons voluntarily went to the house of the deceased, created a flutter by quarrelling with PW-2 Devi. When this was questioned deceased intervened accused caused his death fact remains that accused persons are not in a position to show that murder had taken place out of sudden provocation offence was committed by accused due to a previous enmity clear evidence of eye-witnesses any inconsistency in their version – Ever though there are minor contradictions in then evidence – Court minor inconsistencies do not affect credibility of their evidence or dislodge case of prosecution – Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. The appellants in this appeal are A1 and A2 in S.C. No. 185 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in and by which:

(i) A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(ii) A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(iii) Al to A5 were acquitted of the offence under Section 147 IPC.

(iv) Al and A2 were acquitted of the offence under Section 148 IPC.

(v) Al to A5 were also acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC (2 counts) read with Section 149 IPC.

(vi) Al and A3 to A5 were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC.

(vii) A2 to A5 were also acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence, in a nut-shell, is as follows:

(a) The deceased in this case is one Karthikeyan. PW-1 Bhuavaneswaran is the injured witness. He is the brother of the deceased Karthikeyan. They were rearing cocks in their house to engage them in cockfight. The accused in this case are also residents of the same Street. There was previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased in respect of conducting cock fight.

(b) PW-2 Devi is a close relative of the deceased and she is residing in the next house of PW-1 and the deceased. PW-10 Sakthivel very often used to go to PW-2's house. Since the visit of PW-10 to the house of PW-2 was not to the liking of the accused persons, they indulged in quarrel with PW-2. PW-2 often complained about the accused persons to the deceased and PW-1.

(c) While so, on 08.04.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. when PW-1, the deceased and his family members namely the wife of PW-1 Nathiya, Narayanasamy, father of PW-1 and mother Amsaveni, were in their house, at 4.30 pm PW-1 heard a commotion and saw the accused quarrelling with PW-2-Devi. PW-1 therefore intervened and asked the accused not to engage in any quarrel with PW-2 and that the dispute could be amicably settled. At that time, the accused, 5 in number, have assembled in front of the house of PW-2 with deadly weapons in their possession and the accused Krishnamoorthy/A-2 caused a stab injury on the left side upper portion of the hip of PW-1. Unable to bear the pain, PW-1 fell down. At that time, Bala/A3 picked up a stone and hurled it towards the left leg of PW-1. On hearing the noise of PW-1, the deceased came out of the house and questioned the accused as to why they are assaulting PW-1. While so, the accused Thanga/A-1 caused a stab injury with a knife on the left side upper portion of the hip of the deceased and he fell down on the ground and died instantaneously. This occurrence was witnessed by PW-3 Yesumani, Savithri, PW-2 Devi, PW-5 Murali, Kalidas, Dinesh and PW-4 Jayaram and the accused fled away from the occurrence spot. Immediately, PW-1 was taken to N.G. Hospital in an auto by the wife and his mother-in-law's sister.

(d) On intimation, PW-12 Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to the hospital at about 7 p.m. and recorded the statement of PW-1. and registered a case under Sections 323, 307 and 302 IPC on 08.04.2012 at 7.30 p.m. Ex. P-1 is the complaint and Ex. P11 is the FIR, which was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate Court and the copies of the same to the higher officials.

(e) On receipt of the FIR, PW-15 Inspector of Police took up the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex. P-2 observation mahazar and Ex. P-17 sketch. Thereafter, PW-15 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars from 9.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Ex. P-18 is the inquest report. On completion of the inquest, he forwarded the dead body of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top