Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, S. ANANTHI, JJ.
Chandra & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Theni – Respondent
CRL.A (MD) Nos. 541, 548 of 2018 & 8 to 10 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 4523 of 2020
Decided on : 14-09-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 302, 109 and 506(ii) - First Information Report - Fast Track - Deceased is husband of P.W.1 and he was a Village Level Secretary of a political party A1 in this case was working as a Police Constable and there was a dispute between deceased and A1 in respect of drawing a picture in a local Village Temple in which deceased said to have given a criminal complaint against A1 based on criminal case A1 was dismissed from service hence there was motive for A1 against the deceased - A4 was originally appointed as Village Level Secretary of the political party subsequently he was removed and deceased was appointed in that post and hence A4 also had a motive against deceased - Held, Occurrence took place near the Tea Stall of one In cross-examination he has stated that he found deceased near one Tea Stall and there was blood in front of tea stall and blood shed found from scene of occurrence to Tea Stall - But P.W.18 in his evidence has clearly stated that occurrence took place only near Tea Stall and there is no trial of blood from Tea Stall and Tea Stall - Considering evidence of all eyewitnesses it could be seen that there are material inconsistencies and each of eyewitnesses have given different accounts and they have not implicated all accused - Therefore it creates a doubt regarding presence of eyewitnesses at time of occurrence - Admittedly all eyewitnesses are closely related to deceased and interested witnesses - Their evidence do not inspire confidence and it will be unsafe to convict the accused based on their inconsistent testimony - Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
V. Bharathidasan, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Theni District in S.C.No.162 of 2016 dated 10.12.2018.)
1. The appellants in these Criminal Appeals are Accused Nos.1 to 7 in S.C.No.162 of 2016, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Theni. They stood charged, convicted and sentenced as follows:
| Accused | Original Charge | Altered Charge/Convicted under Section | Sentence Imposed | Fine | Default Sentence |
| A1 | 120(b), 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 148 I.P.C. | 6 months R.I. | -- | -- |
| 506(ii) I.P.C. | 2 years R.I. | -- | -- | ||
| 302 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. | ||
| A2 | 120(b), 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
| A3 | 120(b), 147, 148, 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
| A4 | 120(b), 147, 148, 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
| A5 | 120(b), 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
| A6 | 120(b), 147, 148, 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
| A7 | 120(b), 147, 148, 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 6 Months S.I. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone were given set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, A1 to A3 filed Crl.A.(MD) No.548 of 2018, A4 filed Crl.A.(MD) No.8 of 2019, A5 filed Crl.A.(MD) No.9 of 2019, A6 filed Crl.A.(MD) No.9 of 2019 and A7 filed Crl.A.(MD) No. 541 of 2018.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
The deceased Mandhri is the husband of P.W.1 and he was a Village Level Secretary of a political party. A1 in this case was working as a Police Constable and there was a dispute between the deceased and A1 in respect of drawing a picture in a local Village Temple, in which, the deceased said to have given a criminal complaint against A1, based on the criminal case, A1 was dismissed from service, hence, there was motive for A1 against the deceased. A4 was originally appointed as the Village Level Secretary of the political party, subsequently, he was removed and the deceased was appointed in that post and hence, A4 also had a motive against the deceased.
3. A1 is the son of A2 and A3, A5 is the wife of A4, and A6 and A7 are the son and daughter of A4 and A5. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 30.06.2015, at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased came from Coimbatore to Lakshmipuram, the scene village, and got down near a shop belongs to one Ganesan. At that time, all the accused present in the scene of occurrence and formed an unlawful assembly, A3 and A6 caught hold of the deceased and A4 was having a knife in his hand and A1 received a knife from A4 and stabbed him in the left chest, shoulder and stomach. While the witnesses present there tried to prevent the accused, A1 criminally intimidated them and all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 and one Pandidurai (since deceased), wife and son of the deceased came to the scene of occurrence and took him to hospital, where he was declared dead. Then, Pandidurai, S/o. deceased Mandhiri, went to the respondent Police Station and lodged a complaint at 9.00 a.m. against 10 named accused.
4. P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Veerapandi Police Station, on receipt of the complaint (Ex.P.9) registered a criminal case in Crime No.385 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 302, 109
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
