Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1193
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Karthick & Others - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No. 114 of 2019
Decided On : 01-03-2022
For the Appellant:T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. For the Respondents: R2 & R3, K.P.S. Palanivelrajan, Amicus Curiae, R1, Died.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the accused's participation in executing a common intention beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the benefit of doubt is extended in favor of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Challenge - Sections 302, 34 of IPC - The court discussed the evidence of eyewitnesses, the involvement of the accused, and the theory of common intention. The judgment confirmed the acquittal of the accused based on the lack of material to reverse the trial court's findings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a loan repayment, leading to a confrontation where the accused allegedly caused stab injuries to the deceased. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the state filed an appeal against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish the accused's involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It noted contradictions in the scene of occurrence and the theory of common intention, leading to the confirmation of the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's case, the involvement of the accused, and the theory of common intention under Sections 302, 34 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of material to reverse the trial court's findings, contradictions in the evidence, and the failure to establish the accused's participation in executing a common intention.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court confirming the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(i) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Pudukottai made in S.C.No.50 of 2012 dated 05.05.2017.)
R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.
We have heard Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents 2 & 3/accused Nos.2 & 3.
2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the acquittal of the accused, namely, in S.C.No.50 of 2012, a case registered under Sections 302 (two counts) of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
(i) The Complainant is one Neelakandan, who is the cousin of P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are his friends. The said Neelakandan is son of P.W.4. He lent a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the accused No.1. On 22.01.2012, when Neelakandan asked the accused No.1 to return the amount, at about 7.30 p.m., he was abused by accused No.1. The said Neelakandan informed the same to P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were in the car stand. P.W.1 to P.W.3 along with the deceased went near the accused's house . When both the deceased-D1 and D2, namely, Iyyappan and Ramesh demanded amount from the accused No.1 and the deceased-D1, Iyyappan met the accused No.2. Immediately, the accused No.1 caused stab injuries on both the deceased. At that time, accused No.2 caught-hold the deceased Iyyappan and accused No.3 caught-hold the deceased Ramesh. Thereafter, Neelakandan has lodged a complaint marked under Ex.P.1.
(ii) P.W.16, received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2012 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC (two counts) under Ex.P.13-First Information Report (FIR) and forwarded the complaint to the Court. P.W.20 the Investigation Officer took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch-Ex.P.21, conducted an inquest, prepared the inquest report Exs.P.22 & 23 and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem with a requisition for conducting autopsy over the dead bodies. After completing the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid a final report.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 20 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20, marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23 and 21 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.21. After analyzing both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the State.
5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, charge against him stands abated. Now the appeal remains only against the accused Nos.2 and 3.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.3's evidence clearly demonstrates that the accused Nos.2 and 3 caught-hold both the deceased, which facilitated the accused No.1 to cause stab injuries. But, the trial Court has not considered the evidence properly and First Information Report (FIR) is also lodged promptly and submitted that the involvement of the accused in the crime under Section 302 r/w.34 has been clearly established.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that the entire prosecution case is unbelievable. The trial Court appreciating the entire evidence and the manner in which the crime came to be registered is also doubtful and both the deceased died in some other circumstances and these respondents/accused are implicated unnecessary. It is also submitted that the trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence, had given the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8. The trial Court appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused. Therefore, the burden on the prosecution is more. Apart from proving the
