Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
State represented by The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Sundar (A.1) – Respondent
Crl.A. Nos.180 of 2017, 367, 642 and 760 of 2016
Decided on : 16-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vedavallikumar, for Mr. S. Murugan, Mr. V. Gopinath, for Mr. Swami Subramanian & Mr. P. Pugalenthi, Mr. N. Manokaran
Headnote:
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 114, 109, 120-B, 207, 313,482, 173(8), 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448, 307, 332, 506(II), 406 and 498-A - Indian explosive substance Act, 1908 - Section 3 and 6 – Held, Section 6, ibid., is an omnibus provision which fixes liability on a whole array of persons who get involved directly or indirectly in the commission of a crime with explosives - In this case, hirelings sent by (A.3) carried with them knives and bombs which were used by them in the occurrence and therefore, (A.3) cannot be absolved of the liability under Section 6, ibid - Coming to the sentences imposed on the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor pleaded that the sentences imposed by the trial Court are insufficient and deserve to be enhanced - As Lord Macaulay pointed out, it is not the enormity of sentences that would control crimes but the certainty of punishment - Further, in court opinion, there is no good reason to reduce the sentences imposed by the trial Court, inasmuch as, a stern message that the Courts will not treat such crimes that affect public tranquility and peace with kid glove - Tamil Nadu which is otherwise a peaceful State should not suffer bomb culture - However, court feel that it may not be just to enhance the sentences imposed by the trial Court on the two accused, viz., (A.2) and (A.3) – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT:
Since all the instant four criminals have been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 09.05.2016 passed in S.C. No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.
2 The prosecution story reads thus:
2.1 Premchand (P.W.4) is a Marwari businessman and was residing with his wife Kamala (P.W.6), son Bikamchand (P.W.5) and daughter-in-law Rajkumari (not examined) at Door No.3/7, Muthuraman Street, Mylapore, Chennai, which is the place of occurrence. Apart from being a financier, Premchand (P.W.4) was also into real estate business. Premchand (P.W.4) had a dispute with another Marwari businessman Dharamchand (A.3) in connection with the purchase of a huge property viz., Mandaveli market that belonged to one Janakaiya Chettiyar.
2.2 While that being so, on 07.06.2001, around 9.40 p.m., Premchand (P.W.4) parked his two wheeler outside his house and entered the house. At that time, four persons barged into his house from behind and bolted the front door from inside. While two of them brandished knives, the remaining brandished country bombs. They entered into a conversation with Premchand (P.W.4) saying that if they eliminate him, they would get a huge amount from Dharamchand (A.3). Saying so, they went into the rooms of Premchand's (P.W.4's) house as if looking for a suitable place to plant the bombs. At that time, Premchand's (P.W.4's) son Bikamchand (P.W.5), who was sitting in another portion of the house, came to the hall and he was also made to sit on the sofa. Similarly, Premchand's (P.W.4's) wife Kamala (P.W.6), who was in the house, was also detained in the hall.
2.3 While these were happening, Bikamchand (P.W.5), in the guise of going to the kitchen for drinking water, alerted his wife Rajkumari in Rajasthani language and asked her to call for help. Rajkumari, who was in another room, contacted her brother Chandraprakash (P.W.7), who was residing about 10 kms. away in Kilpauk area. Chandraprakash (P.W.7), in turn, alerted the police and simultaneously rushed to Premchand's (P.W.4's) house. Chandraprakash (P.W.7) came to Premchand's (P.W.4's) house around 10.40 p.m. on 07.06.2001.
2.4 In the meanwhile, Mani (P.W.1), Sub-Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, who was on rounds in his police jeep driven by Sekar (P.W.2), accompanied by Ravindran (P.W.3), Head Constable, received information by wireless that there was some trouble in Door No.3/7, Muthuraman Street, Mylapore, Chennai. Therefore, Mani (P.W.1) reached the place of occurrence by 10.45 p.m. After Chandraprakash (P.W.7) gained entry into the house, Mani (P.W.1) and his police team also gained entry into the house and there, the police party saw four persons with deadly arms.
2.5 When the police started questioning and were attempting to herd them into the police jeep that was parked outside, the foursome tried to escape and one of them hurled a bomb, which exploded in the street. In that explosion, Mani (P.W.1) and Ravindran (P.W.3) sustained splinter injuries. However, with the help of public, the police were able to apprehend one person, who disclosed his name as Jagan @ Jagadeesan (for short "Jagan"). The other three escaped in the melee. The neighbours gathered there and one Dr.Moorthy (P.W.11), who has a clinic in that area, gave first aid to the injured policeman.
2.6 On a written complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Mani (P.W.1), Isaac Paulraj (P.W.22), Inspector of Police, registered a case in E-1, Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.1139 of 2001 at 23.00 hours for the offences under Sections 448, 307, 332 and 506(II) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for brevity "the ES Act"). He prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.15) and sent the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
2.7 Isaac Paulraj (P.W.22) went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of two witnesses, viz., Anil Kumar (P.W.12)
