BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Murugan & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul - Respondent
CRL.A.(MD) No. 163 of 2019
Decided On : 16-03-2022
False Implication - Criminal Appeal - Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 302 of IPC - The court analyzed the evidence and found the prosecution's case doubtful, highlighting the unreliable and unnatural conduct of the witnesses and the delay in lodging the complaint. The judgment set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, husband of P.W.1, was allegedly killed by the accused due to a dispute over immovable properties. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and evidence collected at the place of occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable and unnatural, highlighting the delay in lodging the complaint and the conduct of the witnesses. It concluded that the entire prosecution case was doubtful.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the prosecution's failure to provide convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliable and unnatural conduct of the witnesses, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the lack of convincing evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted from the charges. Any fine amount paid was to be refunded, and bail bonds were terminated.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2019 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Sessions Case No.158 of 2017 and acquit the appellants.)
R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 to 5, aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, dated 28.03.2019, made in S.C.No.158 of 2017, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
(i) The deceased is the husband of P.W.1. There was a dispute over the immovable properties between the accused and the deceased, in respect of which, a complaint was also lodged by the deceased against the accused on 28.07.2013. However, the police has advised both the parties to resolve the issue before the Civil Court. From that onwards, the accused had decided to kill the deceased.
(ii) When the matter stood thus, on 08.11.2013, when the deceased was returning in his two wheeler M.O.10 to his village, the accused travelled in a Van M.O.6 and hit against the deceased's vehicle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were proceeding at the relevant point of time to their village. The accused after hitting the deceased with their vehicle got down from the vehicle. The 2nd accused attacked the deceased with iron rod and the 5th accused hit the deceased with the jockey and threw the body of the deceased in the nearby bushes. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have informed the same to P.W.1 and others in the village. Immediately, P.W.1 along with her children and other villagers rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of her husband. Thereafter, on the next day morning ie., 09.11.2013 at about 08.00 a.m., she lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.13.
(iii) P.W.13 Special Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint at 8.00 a.m., on 09.11.2013 and registered the case in Crime No.209 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120(b) and 302 of IPC under Ex.P.15.
(iv) P.W.14 Investigation Officer took up the case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.3 and rough sketch under Ex.P.17 in the presence of P.W.8 and other witnesses. He also seized M.O.6 and collected blood stained soil under M.O.7 and ordinary soil under M.O.8 and collected one Vodafone cellphone found in the place of occurrence under Ex.P.4 mahazar. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement, thereafter, conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P.19 and sent the dead body for autopsy.
(v) P.W.12 Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries:-
“External Injuries: A deep cut injury on left forehead about 10x1x3 cm extending intracranially involving the brain. Left eye laceration left zygomatic bone left frontal bone leftt mandible, left facial bone, right ear partial avulsion. Right shoulder joint contusion right clavicle 1-3 rd rib, right little finger partially cut, right forearm & arm abrasion, Bleeding both nostrils open, right tibia & fibule at the junction of middle & lower 1/3. Internal examination skull bone intact, left facial extends intracranially lungs (N), hyoid-Intact, Liuee-laceration Bladder-pale is empty. Stomach filled with partially digested food materials. Heart (N) spleen, kidney appears normal intestines-pale appears normal.”
and issued Ex.P.14 and opined that the deceased died due to injuries.
(vi) P.W.14 in continuation of his investigation, arrested the accused 1 to 3 on 09.11.2013 in the presence of P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer and recorded the confession of the third accused. Admissible portion of the confession is marked as Ex.P.5. In pursuance of the same, he seized iron rod M.O.1 and two wheeler M.O.9 and cellphone M.O.2 series. Thereafter, on 18.11.2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
: MURDER – CONVICTION UPHELD - number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that what has been done by the appellant is not less than a barbaric act. It is esta....
The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, and delays in FIR registration do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt through evidence, including motive, eyewitness accounts, and forensic analysis, and dismisses the defense's plea of alibi and the relevanc....
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The appellate court affirmed that collective participation in unlawful assembly under IPC Section 149 holds all members culpable for resulting violent acts, despite minor evidential discrepancies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.