Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
P.N. PRAKASH, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Jebaraj and Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) Nos. 290 of 2017, 167 of 2019
Decided On : 20-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : G. Karuppasamy Pandian, S. Ravi.
For the Respondent: M. Chandrasekaran.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 397 - Offence of Murder /Attempt to Murder – Appeal against conviction - Benefit of doubt - Pattukaniammal, was residing at East Street. After demise of her husband, , she was living alone in that house and her elder brother [PW-2] was residing in Fish Market Street of Madathuvilai. Daughter of deceased, [PW-3] and her husband, [PW-1] were residing at village and PW-1 was working as a Driver in the Government Transport Corporation at Thiruchendur - PW-2 went to his sister's house and found that his sister, was lying dead near Bathroom - Held, Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take place of proof - Court cannot convict an accused on mere surmises, conjecture and suspicion. Prosecution is expected to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts - In this case, as court have already pointed out, at most, it can be said that prosecution has succeeded in creating a suspicion against accused and it has miserably failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubts and thus, we are bound to give benefit of doubt to accused and to acquit him - In view of foregoing discussions, this Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt to appellants/accused, as prosecution has failed to prove case beyond any reasonable doubt - Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Thoothukudi, in S.C. No. 171 of 2011, dated 30.11.2011.
2. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused under Sections 302 and 397 IPC and after full fledged trial, found them guilty, convicted and sentenced them as detailed below:
| Accused | Section of Law | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine Amount |
| A1 & A2 | 302 IPC | To undergo imprisonment for life. | Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
| 397 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. | Rs. 100/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
3. The appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No. 290 of 2017 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No. 167 of 2019 is the second accused. When Crl. A. (MD) No. 290 of 2017 came up for hearing on 09.04.2019, it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that the second accused has not filed any appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court, through video conferencing, enquired the second accused, who is lodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and he has stated that he has no means to engage a Counsel and to file an appeal. Therefore, this Court appraised the second accused of his right to free legal aid and the Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai was directed to produce the second accused/Muniasamy before this Court on 11.04.2019. When the second accused was produced before this Court on the said date, he expressed that he does not have any means to engage a Counsel and requested the Court to appoint a legal aid Counsel and he also gave a written statement to this effect. In his presence, this Court nominated one Mr. S. Ravi [Enrol. No. 822/1997], an Advocate of more than 20 years of standing in the Criminal Bar to defend the second accused/Muniasamy and the second accused had also agreed for the same. Thereafter, Crl. A. (MD) No. 167 of 2019 came to be filed.
4. Since both the appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 30.11.2011 in S.C. No. 171 of 2011, they are taken up together for disposal.
5. The background facts, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows:
5.1. The deceased in this case, namely, Pattukaniammal, was residing at Arumuganeri East Street. After the demise of her husband, namely, Yesuthasan, she was living alone in that house and her elder brother [PW-2] was residing in the Fish Market Street of Madathuvilai. The daughter of the deceased, namely, Eban Christilla [PW-3] and her husband, namely, Packiaraj [PW-1] were residing at Nasarath village and PW-1 was working as a Driver in the Government Transport Corporation at Thiruchendur.
5.2. On 29.08.2010, at about 03.30 pm, PW-2 went to his sister's house and found that his sister, Pattukaniammal, was lying dead near the Bathroom. He immediately informed PW-1 and PW-1 went to the occurrence place along with PW-3. After visiting the place of occurrence, PW-1 went to Arumuganeri Police Station and lodged the complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Mrs. Sabitha (who was not examined due to her maternity leave) and she recorded the complaint of PW-1 in Crime No. 340 of 2010, Arumuganeri Police Station for the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 380 IPC on 29.02.2010 at 06.00 pm. The copy of the complaint is marked as Ex. P1 and the printed First Information Report is marked as Ex. P13.
5.3. After registering the case, the Sub-Inspector of Police handed over the First Information Report to the Head Constable [PW-9] on 29.08.2010 at 07.00 pm, who, in turn, handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, at about 10.00 pm.
5.4. The Inspector of Police, Thiruchendur, who was in-charge for Arumuganeri Police Station
