Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, D. KRISHNAKUMAR, JJ.
Kozhi Prakash & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 688 & 766 of 2018 & 537 of 2019
Decided on : 23-12-2020
For the Appellants :Philip Ravindran Jesudoss, V. Parthiban, M. Mohamed Saifulla, Advocates.
For the Respondent: K. Prabhakar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The delay in sending the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the Court and the adequacy of the explanation for the delay were crucial in determining the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Murder - Common Intention - Criminal Intimidation - [IPC 120(B), 302, 506(ii), 34] - The court convicted A1 under Sections 120-B, 302 and 506(ii) IPC while A2 and A3 were convicted under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC. The appeals were filed by A1, A2, and A3 challenging the judgment. The prosecution's version was that A1 had prior enmity with the deceased and, along with A2 and A3, went to the deceased's house, threatened him, and later stabbed him causing death. The trial court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the recovery made pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused. The defense argued that there was an inordinate delay in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C reaching the Court, and the eye-witnesses' evidence could not be believed. The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be doubtful and the delay in sending the statements and exhibits to be inadequately explained. The court acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges and set aside the conviction of A1 under Section 120-B and 506(ii) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
A1, A2, and A3 were convicted for criminal conspiracy, murder, common intention, and criminal intimidation. The prosecution's version was that A1 had prior enmity with the deceased and, along with A2 and A3, went to the deceased's house, threatened him, and later stabbed him causing death. The trial court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the recovery made pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused. The defense argued that there was an inordinate delay in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C reaching the Court, and the eye-witnesses' evidence could not be believed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be doubtful and the delay in sending the statements and exhibits to be inadequately explained. The court acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges and set aside the conviction of A1 under Section 120-B and 506(ii) IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the delay in sending the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the Court, and the adequacy of the explanation for the delay. The court also considered the evidence of the recovery made pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be doubtful and the delay in sending the statements and exhibits to be inadequately explained. The court acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges and set aside the conviction of A1 under Section 120-B and 506(ii) IPC.
Final Decision: The court acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges and set aside the conviction of A1 under Section 120-B and 506(ii) IPC.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment passed in S.C.No. 85 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Salem dated 06.02.2016.)
1. The appellants were arrayed as A1 to A3 in S.C.No. 85 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem. They were charged with the following charges:-
| A | 1st Charge | Criminally Conspired to commit the murder of deceased under Section 120(B) IPC against A1 to A3 |
| B | 2nd Charge | Murder -Under Section 302 IPC- against A1 |
| C | 3rd Charge | Common Intention to commit murder -Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC - against A2 and A3 |
| D | 4th Charge | Criminally intimidated the witnesses - under Section 506(ii) IPC -against A1. |
| E | 5th Charge | Criminally intimated the witnesses with common intention -Under Section 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC - against A2 and A3 |
2. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted A1 under Sections 120-B, 302 and 506(ii) IPC while A2 and A3 were convicted under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC with the major punishment of life sentence among others.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2018 is filed by A1, Criminal Appeal No. 537 of 2019 is filed by A3 and Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2018 is by A2.
Prosecution Version:
4. A1 was having prior enmity with the deceased as the deceased was making a demand for payment of water can charge from his wife. A2 and A3 are the friends of A1. They went to the house of the deceased on 01.11.2014 and threatened him. While A1 threatened the deceased by questioning him on the demand for payment from his wife, A2 and A3 pacified him and took him away stating that the deceased would be taken care of later. This was stated to have been done in the presence of P.W.1 -wife the deceased and P.W.2 -father. Thereafter, while the deceased was walking along with P.W.1, he was seen by A1, who instructed A2 and A3 to catch the deceased and cut him causing death with a single stab injury. A2 and A3 were stated to have caught hold of the deceased. P.W.7 and another witness took the deceased in a two-wheeler to a Government hospital. The deceased was pronounced dead. P.W.1 thereafter came to the police station and gave a complaint which was registered by P.W.12 -Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P17 at about 10.30 p.m.
5. P.W.14 recorded the statements, prepared the observation mahazar, inquest report and filed the final report on 04.02.2015. The case was committed to the Principal District Judge, Salem and thereafter made out to the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem for trial. After framing the charges, the same was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution had examined fourteen witnesses in total while marking Exs.P1 to P27 apart from M.Os.1 to 12. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. The accused were placed with the incriminating materials while complying with the mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They, accordingly, denied such materials put against them. The trial Court, upon considering all the offences before it, was pleased to render conviction, as aforesaid. Laying a challenge to set aside the judgment rendered, all the accused have filed these three appeals.
Witness, Documents and Material Objects:
7. P.W.1, is the wife of the deceased and also the eye witness. She not only stated about the motive qua the prior occurrence but also the actual occurrence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she and her husband were walking on the road. The accused were present in the liquor shop, which was situated on the way. A1 shouted that the person who insulted his wife by making a demand is going and asked the others to capture him to finish him off. Accordingly, A2 and A3 ran and caught hold of the deceased while A1 used M.O.5 which is a USA Super knife a
