Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Pandi @ Sundara Pandi & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruverumbur & Others - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)Nos. 80, 94, 157 & 245 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos. 1719 & 4051 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2022
The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, finding the accused guilty of the offenses charged. The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, despite the fact that some of the witnesses had turned hostile and there were some discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the brutal murder of three individuals by a gang led by A1. The accused were operating as a gang in Tiruchirappalli and had a rivalry with another group led by Settu, one of the deceased. The accused group planned and executed the murders in retaliation for the killing of one of their members by Settu. The prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W.1, an eyewitness who was driving the car in which the deceased were traveling, and P.W.17, who saw A1 driving the Qualis car used by the accused. The prosecution also presented material evidence, including the seized weapons and the results of the chemical analysis and serological reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.17 was credible and reliable, despite the fact that some of the other witnesses had turned hostile. The court also found that the material evidence corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The court rejected the defense's arguments that the prosecution had failed to establish the motive for the murders or that the accused had not been properly identified. The court also found that the trial court had not erred in altering the charges against the accused during the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the trial court had erred in altering the charges against the accused during the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the material evidence, and the corroborating evidence. 2. The court held that the trial court had not erred in altering the charges against the accused during the judgment, as the alteration did not prejudice the accused in their defense.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer:Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli, made in Special Session Case No.35 of 2005 dated 31.01.2019.)
Common Judgment:
R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.
All these four appeals arising out of the judgment passed in Special Session Case No.35 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tiruchirapalli, dated 31.01.2019. Originally, final report was filed as against 12 accused for the offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 149, 302, r/w 34, 302, 201 IPC, u/s 3(1) (x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) and Section 4 of TNPPD Act for meticulous execution of brutal attack and killing three persons of the opposite group. During pendency of the criminal trial, A1, A3 and A9 died. Therefore, the charges against them were abated. The trial Court found A2, A6, A8 and A10 guilty of the offences under Sections 148, 341 r/w 149 (3 counts) and Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts). The appellants/A2, A6, A8 and A10 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:
|
| Conviction U/s. | Sentence | Fine amount |
| A-2, A-6, A-8 & A-10 | 148 IPC | To undergo three months simple imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. |
| 341 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) | To undergo one year simple imprisonment under each count | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under each count, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under each count. | |
| 302 /w 149 IPC (3 counts) | To undergo life imprisonment under each count | To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under each count, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under each count. |
(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.)
Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants. As all these appeals arising out of the same judgment, all these appeals have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Totally 12 accused charged for various offences for eliminating three of their rival gang viz., Settu (deceased No.1), Suresh (deceased No.2) and Dingi (deceased No.3).
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused all together were operating as a gang in Tiruchirappalli under the leadership of A1-Muttai Ravi, who appears to have died in an encounter by the police, during the pendency of the case. Deceased No.1-Settu was operating a different gang. There was rivalry between the two groups for taking control over the market known as Puthur Market. Similarly, there were also rivalry between two groups for taking contract of the Chinthamani Market. Similarly, there was also rivalry between two groups on account of the murder of one Kuttai James, the younger brother of Settu (deceased No.1) by A1. Due to elimination of Kuttai James, who is the brother of the deceased No.1- Settu, it appears that they decided to eliminate the accused group, particularly A1 on the ensuing death anniversary of Kuttai James on 09.08.2004. Accordingly, accused group learnt that the deceased gang planned to kill A1 during his visit to Tiruchirappalli Court. Therefore, the accused group planned and conspired prior to the occurrence day to eliminate the deceased on 26.07.2004. P.W.1 is one Lenin, who was working as Driver under deceased No.1, Settu. On 26.07.2004, he drove the Ambasadar Car, bearing registration No.TMQ 4599-M.O.23, in which deceased No.1-Settu, deceased No.2-Suresh and deceased No.3 Dingi were travelling along with one Saleem and Thomas. When they were proceeding near the place called Manikandam on Madurai-Trichy Main Road, a Qualis Car-M.O.22 waylaid their Car and A1 to A4 and A6 to A11 got down from the Car with deadly weapons viz., billhook and sword and smashed the windshield of M.O.23. P.W.1 panic stricken, got down from the car and escaped from t
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to reasonable doubt.
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence, caution in relying on a chance witness, and the impact of lapses in the investigation on the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
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