BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAJA, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Mayandi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thirukurungudi Police Station – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 75 of 2018
Decided On : 18-09-2020
294(b) - Murder - Section 294(b) and 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and analyzed the testimonies of witnesses, the recovery of material objects, and the contradictions in the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of eyewitness testimony and the need for careful consideration of evidence, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased's nephew was charged with the murder of the deceased, allegedly due to a property dispute. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and material objects, but the accused denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies, doubts about the presence of witnesses at the scene, and lack of concrete evidence. As a result, the court acquitted the accused due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, contradictions in the prosecution's case, and the lack of concrete evidence to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of witness testimonies, especially when witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. It highlighted the importance of establishing a clear nexus between the accused and recovered material objects. The court ultimately applied the principle of 'benefit of doubt' in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, and acquitted the accused from the charges. Any fine paid was to be refunded, and bail bonds were terminated.
JUDGMENT :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C. No. 120 of 2015 on the file of the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, dated 06.02.2016 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 120 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. He was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC and the trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, though acquitted him of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, has found him guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows:
2.2. PW-2, Thiru Murugan, resides in Nambithalaivan Pattiyam. On 27.02.2014, at about 05.45 p.m. when he was having Tea in Subbiah Nadar's [PW-3] Tea Stall, he heard a noise and witnessed the deceased in a pool of blood. He attempted to inform the same to PW-1, but, she did not attend the call. PW-4, Thiru Arul Rajapandian, is the sonin- law of the deceased and PW-1. On 26.02.2014, he was in his father-in-law's house for Sivarathri function. On 27.02.2014, at about 05.50 pm, when he was having Tea in PW-3's Tea Stall, the deceased came there in his motorcycle and was having a chat with one Murugan [PW-2]. At that time, the accused came there in a motorcycle, bearing registration No. TN-72-B-8853 and abused the deceased in filthy words, took an Aruval [MO1] and caused several cut injuries. When the persons nearby came for rescue, he flew away from the place of occurrence in his motorcycle. He informed the incident to his mother-in-law [PW-1]. PW-5, Thiru Chithirai, is also at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time and also witnessed the occurrence. PW-6, Thiru Kombiah Thevar, though treated as a hostile witness, admitted the place of occurrence and he witnessed the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence in his motorcycle, when he was on his way to PW-3's Tea Stall.
2.3. PW-1, along with PWs. 4 to 6, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, where he was declared brought dead. PW-1, thereafter, went to Thirukurungudi Police Station and lodged the complaint [Ex.P1] before the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW-13], on 27.02.2014 at about 09.00 pm. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, PW-13 registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex.P12. PW-14, the Constable, delivered the express First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, on 27.02.2014 at about 11.10 pm.
2.4. Tmt. Nagakumari [PW-18], Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation about the regis
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.