Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State Rep., by The Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2017 & Crl.M.P. No. 868 of 2019
Decided on : 15-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:K. Shanmugam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Udaya Kumar, adv
The reliability of witness testimony, consideration of delay in registering the F.I.R., and the subsequent conduct of the appellant were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Juvenile Justice Act - Sections 341, 324, 302 of IPC - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - [KEYWORD] - Criminal Appeal - Sections 341, 324, 302 of IPC - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of the deceased. The court found the evidence of the sole witness, PW.1, to be reliable and established the guilt of the appellant. The court also considered the delay in registering the F.I.R. and the subsequent conduct of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC based on the reliable testimony of the sole witness, PW.1, and the medical evidence. The court also considered the delay in registering the F.I.R. and the subsequent conduct of the appellant. The court confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the Criminal Appeal, directing the appellant to be committed to Central Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of the sole witness, PW.1, the delay in registering the F.I.R., and the subsequent conduct of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the reliable testimony of the sole witness, PW.1, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court also considered the delay in registering the F.I.R. and the subsequent conduct of the appellant in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the Criminal Appeal, directing the appellant to be committed to Central Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in connection with the Special C.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Mahila Court/Special Court for cases under POCSO Act /Children's Court, Chennai 104 and set aside the judgment dated 08.10.2017.)
1. On 16.03.2016, the Inspector of Police attached to D1-Triplicane Police Station, Chennai has registered a complaint in Crime No.512 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of I.P.C.
2. The defacto complainant is one Silambarasan. According to the written complaint, on 15.03.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., he went to the house of Arupulakshmi to buy liquor. There Rakesh, Daya, Velu and others voluntarily provoked him and attacked him causing bleeding injury. On hearing that, his brother Mugilan aged about 24 years came and questioned them. Daya and Velu caught hold of the hands of his brother, Rakesh pierced a knife at the throat of his brother. Thereafter, they attacked him and his brother on head and other parts of body with a blade. He and his brother were profusely bleeding. Both were taken to Rajaji Government Hospital. His brother Mugilan was declared brought dead. Action against the assailants and protection to him and his family sought.
3. On 16.03.2016, at about 1.00 p.m., Rakesh was arrested. In his confession statement besides disclosing the motive for murdering Mugilan, he also agreed to show the place where he has concealed the knife used for the crime. Based on the information disclosed by the Rakesh, a blood stained knife was recovered. On completion of investigation, final report against Rakesh and Velu was filed.
4. The XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court on perusing the records, considering the age of the accused split up the case against the 2nd accused Velu aged about 16 years and transferred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kellys, Chennai. After the preliminary assessment as per Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, this appellant (who was then 17 years old) was transferred to Mahila Court/Special Court for Case under POCSO Act, Chennai to be tried as an adult. However, the Special Court after discussing with the psychologist, has decided that there is no need for trial of the Juvenile as an adult, an enquiry is sufficient.
5. The copies were furnished to the appellant and enquiry was conducted. 10 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. 20 Exhibits and five Material Objects were marked.
6. The Court below pointing out that the occurrence took place on 15.03.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. The complaint was given on the next day i.e., on 16.03.2016 at 8.15 a.m., PW.1, who sustained injury got admitted in the hospital on 15.03.2016 at 9.30 p.m., and the intimation to the hospital authorities received by the concerned police station. Though they recorded complaint on the next day, since PW.1 was admitted in the hospital, the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case and further held that the evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.5 are in harmony with each other and had clearly establish the guilt of the appellant, in respect of the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, acquitted his for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. The Court ordered to send him to the Special Home as per Section 18(i)(g) of Juvenile Justice Act.
7. The Learned Judge had recorded his reasons for the said order as below:-
“Alter completion of trial, this Court requested the District Child Protection Officer to give Councelling to the CCL Vide D.No.8972/2017 dt 21.07.2017. As such, District Child Protection Officer insisted the Social Worker to give Counselling to the CCL. Further given Report on 18. 8.2017 as follows:
"Later, Social Worker went to Child Rakesh House located at SM Nagar, for Social investigation but he was not found there. So, the Social Worker approached the neighbours house regarding any information about Rakesh. But, they have said that he shifted his house to Near Cent
