Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Srinivasan and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State by the Inspector of Police, Bungalow Pudur Police Station – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 794 of 2015
Decided On : 22-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : I.C. Vasudevan.
For the Respondent: R. Vinoth Raja.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120(B) , 506(i), 109 r/w 326 and 460 – Offence of Criminal Conspiracy - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons - Charged - Respondent filed charge sheet against the appellants for an alleged offence under Section 120(b), 506(i), 109 r/w 326, 460 IPC which was taken on file in S.C. No. on file of Third Additional Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District on allegations that appellants 2 and 3 conspired together with 1st appellant and entered house of defacto complainant namely and second appellant assaulted him with Aruval and caused grievous injuries on his head, while third appellant assisted second appellant - After that, first appellant came there and admitted defacto complainant into Hospital and thereby committed offence - In all three circumstances, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 have whispered names of accused - Thereafter, under the guise of getting further statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. investigation officer has introduced A1, A2 and A3, as an accused - Due to previous enmity between parties, they have been falsely implicated – Held, Court find that in view of improvements made in version of PW-1 and PW-2, and reason assigned for inclusion of name of first accused who is said to have been called by PW-1 through PW-3, at earlier instance and first accused having accompanied by PW-1/injured to hospital and taken care of PW-1 all along was subsequently implicated as an accused without any positive evidence and hence, Court find version of PW-1 and PW-2 are unreliable and untrustworthy, same suffers from self contradiction, as per statement given at earliest point of time as discussed supra and hence, all is not well with prosecution theory and there is no positive evidence to connect first accused with alleged crime - In the absence of any positive evidence, to connect accused having nexus with crime, Court find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - By operation of law, benefit of doubt goes to accused - Giving benefit of doubt to accused/appellants, they are acquitted - Criminal appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
1. The matter is heard through Video Conference.
2. The convicted accused are the appellants herein.
3. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.15.2015 passed in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the filed of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, convicting the appellants and sentenced the first appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default 6 months R.I. to undergo 4 years under Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. sentencing the second appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. and sentenced the 3rd appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default 6 months R.I. to undergo 4 years under Section 326 r/w 114 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.
4. The respondent filed the charge sheet against the appellants for an alleged offence under Section 120(b), 506(i), 109 r/w 326, 460 IPC which was taken on file in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District on the allegations that on 09.10.2013 at about 11.00 P.M. the appellants 2 and 3 conspired together with the 1st appellant and entered the house of the defacto complainant namely Mohan and the second appellant assaulted him with Aruval and caused grievous injuries on his head, while the third appellant assisted the second appellant. After that, the first appellant came there and admitted the defacto complainant into the Hospital and thereby committed the offence.
5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-8 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and MO.1 was marked. On behalf of the defence, no documents or evidence has been marked.
6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, has convicted the accused and awarded the sentence as stated supra.
7. Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that:
(a) PW-1 and PW-2 who are husband and wife are improved their version, after complaint, so as to falsely convicted the accused.
(b) PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable. Since the versions are a self contradictory, as per the own version given in the complaint with that their evidence before the Court.
(c) There is no independent eye witness to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution.
(d) No other material is placed before the Court to connect the accused in the crime.
(e) Earlier version given by PW-1 (injured) given to the Government Doctors, Sathyamangalam as well as the Doctor, at Coimbatore as well as Ex.P1 complaint, it is unnamed and unknown accused. The complaint was given on 20.10.2013 and further statement of PW-1 was recorded on 21.10.2013 and further relevant statement was recorded on 27.10.2013.
8. In all three circumstances, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 have whispered the names of the accused. Thereafter, under the guise of getting the further statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. the investigation officer has introduced A1, A2 and A3, as an accused. Due to previous enmity between the parties, they have been falsely implicated.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the scene of the crime is inside the house and hence, no independent witness would be examined, in view of the occurrence taken inside the house. Both, PW-1 and PW-2 have assigned the reason for not mentioning the name
