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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 3091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A.(MD) No. 51 of 2018 and M.P.(MD) No. 2038 of 2018
Decided On : 07-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for K. Prabhu
For the Respondent: M. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 176(1-A) – Offence of murder - Life Imprisonment – First Information Report - Appellant is said to have taken a house on rent at Village near and he was doing milk business - Wife of appellant developed an illicit intimacy with one who is son of house owner - This came to be known to house owner and he asked appellant to vacate house and accordingly house was vacated – However illicit intimacy continued and wife of appellant is said to have eloped with said along with child - Appellant therefore preferred a complaint before Police Station and an FIR came to be registered in Crime for an offence under Section 366 of IPC - De facto complainant who is Sub Inspector of Police on instructions of Inspector of Police took deceased and child along with accused and other family members and constable in a car and they were returning to Police Station through National Highway - At that time car was driven and next to him deceased was seated and next to deceased P.W.1 was seated – Held, Yet another issue that has to be taken into consideration in this case is delay in statements of witnesses reaching Court - Statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 reached Court – Similarly statement of P.W.10 who is father of deceased had also reached Court - When P.W.16 was questioned about same in cross examination he specifically states that he has no explanation for enormous delay - Therefore it also makes this Court infer that there was a lot of deliberation which resulted in preparing statement and submitting it to Court with enormous delay - It is also surprising that seizure marked as Ex. P.12 and Ex. P.13 are only Xerox copies and there is no explanation given as to why original seizure was not marked in this case - Therefore doubts regarding the recovery of the material objects as projected by the prosecution also gets strengthened - A combined reading of entire evidence available on record and in view of above discussion this Court is of considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove case against appellant beyond reasonable doubts - This Court is rendering this finding by independently assessing oral and documentary evidence and after giving a specific finding that credibility and reliability of investigation conducted by prosecution without complying with mandatory requirements under Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code itself raises a big question mark on investigation done in this case - It is clear that this incident has not taken place in manner as projected by prosecution - Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed

JUDGMENT

S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment of the I-Additional District and Sessions Court; Madurai, made in S.C. No. 382 of 2015, dated 29.01.2018, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief :

The appellant is said to have taken a house on rent at Koduvai Village, near Avinasipalayam and he was doing milk business. The wife of the appellant developed an illicit intimacy with, one Sathish, who is the son of the house owner. This came to be known to the house owner and he asked the appellant to vacate the house and accordingly, the house was vacated. However, the illicit intimacy continued and the wife of the appellant is said to have eloped with the said Sathish along with the child. The appellant therefore, preferred a complaint before the Nalatinpudhur Police Station and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 123 of 2011 for an offence under Section 366 of IPC, on 07.04.2011.

3. The de facto complainant, who is the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.1), on instructions of the Inspector of Police, took the deceased Sathish, Murugeswari (P.W. 9) and the child along with the accused and other family members and constable Murugan (P.W.2), in a car (M.O.3) and they were returning to Nalatinpudhur Police Station on 07.04.2011, at about 10.45 p.m., through Thirumangalam to Virudhunagar National Highway. At that time, the car was driven by Raveendran (P.W.6) and next to him, the deceased was seated and next to the deceased, P.W.1 was seated. Behind them, in the back seat, Damodharan (P.W.5), the appellant and Radhakrishnan (P.W.3) were seated. Behind that Rajendran(P.W.4) and the Head Constable Murugan (P.W.2) were seated. Near them, the wife of the appellant, Murugeswari (P.W.9) was also seated along with the child. When the car came near a overbridge at Dindigul, the child started crying and the appellant got down to buy milk and he was accompanied by Damodharan and others, who also wanted to drink tea. The deceased was under the control of P.W.1 and the wife of the appellant was taken care by P.W.2.

4. All of them got into the car and when the car was proceeding towards Kallikudi, all of a sudden, the appellant is said to have abused the deceased and pulled his head and caused a cut injury in his neck and thereby, caused the death of the deceased.

5. The Special Sub Inspector (P.W.1) saw the appellant with the blood stained knife (M.0.1) and the same was recovered. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and the Doctor, who examined him at about 11.30 p.m., declared him as brought dead.

6. P.W.1 returned back to the police station on 08.04.2011 at 1.00 a.m., in the morning and based on his complaint (Ex. P.1), an FIR was registered (Ex. P.6) by the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station (P.W.13) in Crime No. 57 of 2011 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The express FIR (Ex. P.6) was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, and it reached the Court on 08.04.2011 at about 6.00 a.m.

7. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.16) and he came to the scene of crime at about 1.30 a.m., and prepared the observation mahazer (Ex. P.2) and rough sketch (Ex. P.11) in the presence of witnesses. He thereafter recovered the car (M.O.3), which was parked in the police station in the presence of witnesses under seizure mahazer (Ex. P.10). He also recovered the blood stained knife (M.O.1) from the car under seizure mahazer (Exs. P.12 and P13). Further, the blood stained rubber sheet was also recovered (M.O.4).

8. The investigating officer proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He went to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital on 08.04.2011 at about 7.00 a.m.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top