BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Balamurugan & Another - Appellant
Versus
State through, Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 83 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 34 and 364 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Offence of murder - Appeal against conviction - Deceased is husband deceased in an inebriated condition was lying in front of a temple which is near by petti shop owned by P.W.3 and P.W.4 husband and wife - In an inebriated stage, deceased used abusive and filthy language - Accused 1 and 2 came there and P.W.3 asked the accused to take the deceased and drop him to the bus stand - Accused tried to lift deceased, the deceased allegedly abused the accused - Accused took the deceased in their bike – Held, Court also find that the trial Court has framed charges for offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC simpliciter against both accused. It is to be noted that entire prosecution itself is based on circumstantial evidence and who has caused death itself is doubtful. framing the charge for the offence under Section 302 simpliciter by trial Court is not proper - Trial Court ought to have framed charge under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC when there is common intention of all the accused - Allegation of common intention in murder trial, the trial Court has to frame charges for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC to make all accused liable for punishment - Practise of the trial Court simply ignoring the rule of evidence and framing charges under Sections 302 IPC simpliciter is highly deprecated and trail Court particularly the learned trial Judge should careful in future to avoid such mistake - Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subramanian, N. Sathish Kumar, JJ.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No. 464 of 2015 dated 23.08.2018.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 23.08.2018, made in S.C.No.464 of 2015, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.
2. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:
|
| Conviction U/s. | Sentence | Fine amount |
| A-1 | 364 IPC | To undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. |
|
| 302 IPC | To undergo life imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one rigorous imprisonment. |
| A-2 | 364 IPC | To undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. |
|
| 302 IPC | To undergo life imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one rigorous imprisonment. |
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.)
3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:
(ii) When the matter stood thus, on 01.07.2014, P.W.1-VAO of Nanguneri, on hearing the news about the dead body found in the graveyard near the mosque, went to the place of occurrence at 9.30 a.m., and found the dead body, found the cloths of the deceased with bloodstain and three pieces of bloodstained bricks and also found the injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased and thereafter, immediately he lodged a complaint- Ex.P1 before the respondent police. P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police after receiving Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P12-First Information Report and forwarded the FIR to the Court along with Ex.P.13-visceral report.
(iii) P.W.22, Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P. 2 in the presence of P.W.8 and also seized bloodstained clothes and three pieces of bricks under Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazer and has also collected bloodstained earth and ordinary earth under MO.4 and MO.5 in the place of occurrence and has conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P.20 and sent the body for post-mortem with requisition for conducting autopsy over the dead body. P.W.2 is the brother in law of the deceased and he has identified the dead body in the hospital. P.W.17 conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:
“1. Abrasions: 3 x 1 cm seen in front of left shoulder; 1 x 1 cm seen in front of left forearm; 4 x 3 cms seen in right side of forehead; 4 x 3 cms seen in right cheek; 2 x 1 cm seen in front of right ear; 6 x 4 cms seen in middle of fore head; 4 x 3 cms seen in left side of nose; 7 x 6 cms seen in left side of forehead; 6 x 3 cms seen in left cheek; 3 x 2 cms seen in back of left shoulder; 1 x 1 cm seen in back of right shoulder
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.