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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 314

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, G. ILANGOVAN, JJ.
Anish – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by, Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari – Respondent
Crl. A (MD) No. 343 of 2018 & Crl. MP (MD) No. 4630 of 2020
Decided On : 30-03-2021

Appearing Advocates:
For the Appellant :R. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel, K. Prabhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R. Anandha Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor.

POINT OF LAW : MURDER – CONVICTION UPHELD - number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that what has been done by the appellant is not less than a barbaric act. It is established that he intended to chop the deceased into pieces. It is not less than an act of butchering, it requires no sympathetic consideration at all.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300, 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Judgment of conviction – Appeal has been filed to set aside judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, in S.C. – Appellant is arrayed as first accused in S.C. on file of Principal District and Sessions Judge – He has been convicted for offence u/s. 302 IPC – Assailing conviction and sentence, he has come up with this appeal –

Finding of the Court:

Non-examination of the independence witnesses need not be given any importance. – Non examination of one Bilomina does not affect the case of the prosecution. – Last argument that was advanced by the appellant is that by giving the benefit of doubt given to the other accused must also be extended to this appellant also. – But, theory of conspiracy was disbelieved by Trial Court and evidence produced by prosecution to prove same was found to be unbelievable. – On that ground benefit of doubt was given to the other two accused. – Moreover, they do not take any active part in assault. – Even as per evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, they do not say anything about involvement of other two accused persons in assault. – They have simply stated that all three accused persons came in a motorcycle and appellant assaulted deceased while other two asked appellant to run away from place and also they fled away in a motorcycle. – So, their participation in assault is doubted. – So, argument that same benefit should be extended to appellant, cannot be accepted. – So, from evidence of postmortem report in Ex.P.10, weapon used for causing of injury shows that it is a case of clear intentional murder, which comes under first limb of Section 300 IPC. – Number of injuries found on body of the deceased, clearly establishes fact that what has been done by appellant is not less than a barbaric act. – It is established that he intended to chop deceased into pieces. – It is not less than an act of butchering, it requires no sympathetic consideration at all. – Court find no reason to interfere into conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court –

Result: Appeal Dismissed

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, call for records from the Lower Court and to duly set aside the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil in S.C.No.172 of 2017 dated 05.07.2018.)

G. Ilangovan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil in S.C.No.172 of 2017, dated 05.07.2018.

2. The Appellant is arrayed as first accused in S.C.No.172 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, dated 05.07.2018. He has been convicted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced as follows:

Accused

Offence

Sentence

A

(i) 302 IPC

Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- indefault to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment

3. Assailing the conviction and sentence, he has come up with this appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution:

i) The deceased is the husband of P.W.1, the father of P.W.3 and brother-in-law of P.W.2, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Some 10 years prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased and the first accused had enmity and the deceased was made as an accused in the complaint, which was filed by the first accused. In that case, a warrant was issued to the deceased. He was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on 26.04.2017. He was released on bail on 29.04.2017. But, came out of the prison on 30.04.2017, at 08.00 a.m.

ii) In the morning, on the same day, at about 05.30 a.m, the house of the first accused was damaged in fire. The fire was extinguished by the villagers and the fire service. So, because of this fire incident, A1 came to the house of P.W.1 and threatened her stating that he will do away with her husband since his house was burnt. The neighbours pacified him.

iii) When the deceased came to the house from the prison, they went to a poultry farm, which was run by his family and in that place, poultry feeds were not available. So, the deceased and P.W.1 to P.W.3, returning to the house for bringing poultry feeds in two separate two wheelers. When they were nearing the place of occurrence, there was a speed breaker, the three accused came in a motorcycle and way-laid the deceased at about 01.00 p.m. The deceased got down from the two wheeler and was assaulted by the first accused, who is the appellant herein with aruval, and caused various injuries all over the body and continued the assault aiming at the neck region of the deceased. This was witnessed by one Ratna and Pilomina. When the other accused warned the first accused to runaway from the place of occurrence and they also ran away.

iv) The neighbours have brought the ambulance and the deceased was taken to the hospital before the police man came to the place of occurrence. Along with them, all went to the Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, where he was declared dead.

v) In respect of which, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, EX.P.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station. It was reduced into writing by P.W.2 as narrated by P.W.1.

5. At about the same time, P.W.14, who was working as Special Sub Inspector in Eraniel Police Station was on patrol duty at about 01.15 p.m, in the place of occurrence, he saw a number of people gathered in the area and the deceased was lying with cut injuries. He was taken to the Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital through Head Constable along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and he remained in the place of occurrence by guarding the evidence and later, he brought the two wheeler bearing Registration No.75-B-1706 to the Police Station. Similarly, P.W.16, who was also attached to the Eraniel Police Station and working as Head Constable at the relevant point of time, was al

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