Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2958
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. NISHA BANU, JJ.
Rajendran & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi - Respondent
Crl. A.(MD). No. 480 of 2018
Decided On : 22-09-2021
For the Appellant :I. Subramanian, Sr. counsel C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, R. Venkatesan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313 and 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 341, 294(b), 307 and 506 (ii) - Land Dispute – Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Deceased in this case is father of P.W.1 - Due to a land dispute, deceased was going for his morning walk along with his son (P.W.1) all three accused came in a motor cycle and A1, attacked deceased with billhook in his head and other two unknown accused indiscriminately attacked him – Held, P.W.1 has clearly stated that occurrence has taken place in Paulpandi Nagar, behind one C.S.I. Church - However, from perusal of Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch – Ex.P26, it could be seen that, occurrence took place far away from scene of occurrence - So far as registration of F.I.R. is concerned, P.W.1, has clearly stated that he has given a statement before police in Hospital, which has been reduced into writing and police got his signature in it - But, P.W. 17, Investigating Officer has stated that P.W.1, has written complaint and handed over it in Police Station - Based on that complaint, F.I.R. has been registered, concerned person, who has registered F.I.R., was not examined by prosecution, and there is no plausible reason for non-examination of person, who has registered F.I.R - Apart from that, even though F.I.R. said to have been registered it reaches Judicial Magistrate Court, only on next day and there is no explanation for delay of 24 hours in sending F.I.R. to Court which situated very nearby to police station - Unexplained delay also created a doubt about prosecution case – Court is of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, appellants 1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Bharathidasan, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.08.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.117 of 2017, on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.117 of 2017, on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and they stood charged and tried for the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 341 of I.P.C.
2. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018, has convicted the appellants herein for the above said offences and imposed the sentences, thus:
| Rank of the Accused | Charge | Conviction |
| Accused No.1 | U/s. 302 of I.P.C. | To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. |
| U/s. 341 of I.P.C. | To undergo one month simple imprisonment. | |
| Accused No.2 | U/s. 302 of I.P.C. | To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. |
| U/s. 341 of I.P.C. | To undergo one month simple imprisonment. | |
| Accused No.3 | U/s. 302 of I.P.C. | To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. |
| U/s. 341 of I.P.C. | To undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
Now, challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/A1 to A3.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case one Arumugam, is the father of P.W.1. Due to a land dispute, on 27.09.2015, at about 7.00 a.m, while the deceased was going for his morning walk along with his son Vignesh (P.W.1) behind C.S.I Church at Tuticorin, all the three accused came in a motor cycle and A1, Rajendran, attacked the deceased with billhook in his head and other two unknown accused indiscriminately attacked him with sickle and caused serious injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 returned back to home and informed his cousins P.Ws.4 and 5. Thereafter, they took the deceased in a 108 Ambulance and admitted him in the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, wherein he succumbed to injuries on 29.09.2015, at 9.30 a.m. P.W.1 appeared before the respondent police station and filed a complaint/Ex.P1. Based on that, an F.I.R. has been registered for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C., on 27.09.2015 at 10.30 hrs.
4. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police in the respondent police station, on receipt of F.I.R., commenced the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch- Ex.P26 and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 29.09.2015, after receipt of death intimation from the hospital, P.W.17 went to the Hospital, where he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of witnesses from 11.30 to 13.30 hrs. and recorded their statement, and filed an Alteration Report - Ex.P28 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of I.P.C. On the same day, he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. On such arrest, A1, voluntarily come forward to give a confession. Based on the admissible portion of the confession, P.W.17 recovered a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 69A 3834, and also two billhooks – M.Os.1 and 2 and remanded them to judicial custody. On 27.10.2015, A3 in this case viz., Nimal @ Kakkaiyan appeared before the Village Administrative Officer / P.W.11 and given an extra judicial confession, and P.W.11, produced him before P.W.17, and he arrested him. On such arrest, A3, voluntarily given a confession and based on the admissible portion of his confession, P.W.17, recovered sickle and a knife, M.Os.3 and 4 and rema
