Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
V. Subramanian & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Cuddalore - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2019
Decided On : 02-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2),161 and 207 –Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148,149 ,302, 294(B), 341, 323 and 307 - Appeal For conviction - Investigation by police – Punishment for murder - An animosity between two group of persons viz accused and Victims in prosecution witnesses on account of help of one Sanjeevi (since deceased) and other injured/victims in prosecution witnesses for elopement of one Subasri daughter of A1 with one Karthik is said to be root cause for offence – whether prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and whether Trial Court is right in convicting appellants -Held, Court has to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that genesis of occurrence has been suppressed by prosecution and prosecution witnesses have tried to give a different colour to occurrence without explaining injuries sustained by accused parties in same occurrence and resultant criminal proceedings initiated by them and thereby prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and it is surrounded by cloud of doubts and benefit of such doubt has to be afforded to appellants/accused, however Trial Court without properly appreciating evidence available on record and tangible contradictions thereon has rendered an erroneous finding and has wrongly convicted and sentenced appellants and thereby they are entitled for acquittal - Criminal Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves an appeal against the conviction and sentence in a murder trial, with the appellants challenging the evidence and investigation process (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, chemical analyses, and police investigation records, which collectively established the occurrence of an assault resulting in death (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation involved arresting the accused, seizure of weapons, and conducting post-mortem and chemical analysis, which supported the prosecution's narrative of a violent incident leading to death (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence, leading to convictions and sentences for various charges including murder, assault, and related offenses (!) (!) (!) .
The defense argued that the investigation was biased, that the genesis of the case was suppressed, and that contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence cast doubt on the case's veracity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defense also pointed out that injuries sustained by the accused were not explained, and that there was a delay in FIR transmission, which undermined the reliability of the prosecution case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution maintained that the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and police investigation procedures (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court found significant contradictions, unexplained delays, suppression of evidence, and a biased investigation, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
As a result, the appellate court acquitted the accused, set aside the conviction and sentences, and ordered the cancellation of bail bonds and refund of any paid fines (!) .
These points encapsulate the core issues, evidence, arguments, and the ultimate judgment as reflected in the document.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.156 of 2014 dated 18.12.2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.)
1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.156 of 2014, A1 to A5 have preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The appellants/accused stand convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Rank of the party | Provision of Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 | 304(i) IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- i/d SI for one year |
| A2 | 323 IPC | SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for one month |
| A3 | 324 IPC | SI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for one month |
| A4 | 323 IPC | SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for one month |
| A5 | 323 | IPC SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for one month |
3. An animosity between two group of persons viz., accused and the victims in the prosecution witnesses on account of help of one Sanjeevi (since deceased) and other injured/victims in the prosecution witnesses for elopement of one Subasri @ Ammu, daughter of A1 with one Karthik is said to be the root cause for the offence.
4. The factual matrix in brief as evinced from the prosecution witnesses and other materials is as under:-
(i) A1 is father of A2 to A4 and A5 is the brother in law of A1. On 25.3.2013, at about 11.00 pm, PW1 Mayaselvan alongwith the deceased Sanjeevi were proceeding to their house in their motorcycles and by that time, A1 and A2 were standing near Mariyamman Temple and the deceased Sanjeevi drove the motorcycle in a manner likely to dash against A1. Subsequently, on the same night, when PW1, deceased Sanjeevi and PW4 Jothibasu came back in the same way to proceed towards Kumarakudi Main Road, they noticed Bamboos Sticks lying on the middle of the road. On noticing the same, PW1 slowed down the two wheeler and at that time, the accused persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons with the intention to cause death of Sanjeevi and other witnesses.
(ii) Abusing the victims with filthy language, A3 had assaulted the de facto complainant on his head with the aid of Kattai Kazhi due to which, the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. A1 had assaulted the deceased Sanjeevi on his head with Kattai Kazhi. When PW2 Boominathan and PW3 Anbhazhagan came to rescue, A2 had assaulted PW2 on his head with Kattai Kazhi. A4 and A5 has attacked PW3 on his face and forehead due to which, PW2 and PW3 had sustained simple injuries. The injured Sanjeevi, who was assaulted by A1 was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Chidambaram, where, he was referred for higher treatment at Government Hospital, Chennai.
(iii) PW12 is Doctor Saravanakumar, who had treated the victims/injured Sanjeevi (since deceased) and P.Ws.1 to 3 and issued the Accident Register copies, Exs.P15 to P18 referring the victim Sanjeevi to be treated at Government Hospital, Chennai.
(iv) On receipt of information from the Government Hospital, Chidambaram on 26.3.2013 at about 5.00 am, PW14, Sub Inspector of Police, Chozhatharam Police Station had visited the Hospital and recorded the statement, Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2013 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(B), 341, 323 and 307 IPC, the FIR being Ex.P19. He had sent the FIR and other papers to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil and copies of the same to his higher officials and submitted the case records to PW16, Inspector of Police.
(v) PW16, who took up the investigation, had visited the scene of occurrence on 26.3.2013 at about 8.00 am and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P2 and rough sketch, Ex.P21 in the presence of PW6 and another. Subsequently, PW16 had seized M.Os.1 to 4
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
