Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
Nagarajan & Others - Appellant
Versus
State: Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A.No. 262 of 2019
Decided On : 15-04-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w.34 and 307 - Offence of murder – Appeal against conviction - Respondent police registered a case against appellants in Crime offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 r/w.34 IPC. After investigation they laid a charge-sheet against the appellants before Judicial Magistrate Court for offences under Sections 302 r/w.120-B, 302 r/w. 34 and 201 r/w. 302 IPC- Learned Magistrate had taken charge-sheet on file in P.R.C. and after completing formalities, he committed case to Principal Sessions Court offences are triable by a Sessions Judge - Prosecution during trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and 55 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P55, and 5 Material Objects
Finding of the court: Confession and recovery of A4 has not been proved substantially time of commission of offence, A4 did not participate as per confession statement of A1, wherein, A1 has stated deceased was having illicit intimacy with his wife and occurrence - deceased called his wife and conversed in an unwanted language he put a towel on neck of deceased and strangulated with help of A2 and asked A3 to hold legs of deceased and A3 also held the legs of the deceased, till he lost his breath - Confession statement of A1, A4 has not participated in commission of offence - Benefit of doubt has to be extended to and in favour of A4 and hence - Court finds conviction of A4 for the offence - Conviction and sentence as against A4 for offence under Section 307 r/w. 120-B IPC is set aside and A4 is acquitted of all charges against him - Conviction and sentence as against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the conviction and sentence as against A3 for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC are confirmed - Conviction and sentence as against A1 to A4 for offence under Section 120-B IPC is set aside and all appellants are acquitted of charge under Section 120-B IPC
Result: Criminal Appeal is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25.04.2019, in S.C.No.51 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25.04.2019, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.51 of 2015.
2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellants in Crime No.70 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 r/w.34 IPC. After the investigation, they laid a charge-sheet against the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Namakkal, for the offences under Sections 302 r/w.120-B, 302 r/w. 34 and 201 r/w. 302 IPC. The learned Magistrate had taken the charge-sheet on file in P.R.C.No.6 of 2015, and after completing the formalities, he committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, since the offences are triable by a Sessions Judge.
3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, had taken the case on file in S.C.No.51 of 2015 and after completing the formalities, framed the charges for the offences under Sections 120-B and 201 r/w.302 IPC as against A1 to A4, Sections 307 and 302 IPC as against A1 and A2, Sections 307 r/w. 34 and 302 r/w. 34 IPC as against A3, and Sections 307 r/w. 120-B and 302 r/w. 120-B IPC as against A4.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution during trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and 55 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P55, and 5 Material Objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Three Court Documents were marked as Exs.C1 to C3.
5. After completing the trial and hearing of the arguments advanced on either side, considering the materials, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as follows:
| Accused | Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
| A1 to A4 | Section 120-B IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 months each. A1 and A2 Section 307 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 months each. |
| A3 Section | 307 r/w. 34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 months each. |
| A3 | A3 Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 months. |
| A4 | Section 307 r/w. | Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 months. |
| The sentences shall run concurrently. | ||
6. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, all the accused have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would submit that there is no eye-witness in this case and no independent witness has been examined to substantiate the motive, and none of the witnesses has spoken about the motive. There is no eye-witness in this case and the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and none of the witnesses has spoken that the deceased was last seen with the appellants, and all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, except P.W.9 (Village Administrative Officer) and P.W.10 (Assistant to Village Administrative Officer), who have also only partly supported the case of the prosecution and they also turned hostile in respect of the remaining accused persons other than A1.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the medical evidence has also not corroborated with the confession statement said to have been ma
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
