IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Nagaraja Reddy & Another - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, HUDCO Police Station, Krishnagiri - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 34 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 341, 302 IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused, the evidence presented, and the court's findings. It highlights the importance of witness testimony, the corroboration of evidence, and the legal principles regarding delayed registration of an FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Rajappa, a member of the Naidu community, was attacked and killed by a group of individuals from the Reddy community. The prosecution presented evidence of the attack, including witness testimony and forensic reports. The trial court convicted two of the accused, while acquitting the others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the case against one of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, while extending the benefit of doubt to another accused, resulting in his acquittal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellants were part of the gang that attacked Rajappa. The court also considered the delay in registering the FIR and the credibility of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of witness testimony and the corroboration of evidence in establishing guilt. It also clarified that delayed registration of an FIR does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on one of the accused were confirmed, while another accused was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur in S.C.No.7 of 2007.)
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2018 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur in S.C.No.7 of 2007.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. The deceased Rajappa belongs to Kolla Naidu community and the accused viz., A1 to A13 are from Reddy community and both of them hail from Oozhiyalam village in Krishnagiri District. Radha (P.W.3), wife of Rajappa, was the President of the local Outreach Women Self-Help Group.
2.2. The said self-help group purchased a land in the Oozhiyalam village and wanted to build a compound wall around the said land, for which, the contract for building the same went to the Naidu community people, on account of which, there were quarrels between the Reddys and Naidus. One such quarrel had ensued sometime in the year 2002, in connection with which, criminal cases were registered against both parties in the Bagalur Police Station and both parties were facing prosecutions in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.
2.3. While that being so, on 14.09.2004, around 10 a.m., Rajappa left home in his TVS-50 motorcycle (M.O.8) along with his elder brother Narayanappa (P.W.1). While the brothers viz., Rajappa and Narayanappa (P.W.1) were proceeding towards the Court, A-1 to A-5 waylaid them near the check post, sprinkled chilli powder on the face of Rajappa and hacked him to death.
2.4. Thereafter, the Reddy group went to the village and pelted stones at the house of Rajappa and Koopaliappa (P.W.4), loudly proclaiming that they had just finished off Rajappa and the same fate would befall the others too.
2.5. Narayanappa (P.W.1) escaped from the place of attack, ran to the village and informed Radha (P.W.3) about the attack and returned to the place of occurrence with Radha (P.W.3) and others.
2.6. With regard to the attack on the house of the Naidu community people, the son of Koopaliappa (P.W.4), rushed to Bagalur Police Station to lodge a complaint, whereas, Koopaliappa (P.W.4) came to the check post and found Rajappa dead on the road.
2.7. On information, Rajasekar (P.W.11), Village Administrative Officer, came to the place of occurrence, to whom, Narayanappa (P.W.1) gave a statement, which was written in Tamil and was treated as a complaint (Ex.P1). This statement of Narayanappa (P.W.1) was given by Rajasekar (P.W.11) to Duraisamy (P.W.15), Sub-Inspector of Police, HUDCO Police Station, based on which, a case in HUDCO P.S. Crime No.251 of 2004 was registered on 14.09.2004 at 13.00 hrs. for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC against 5 accused viz., Nagaraja Reddy, Nagi Reddy, Sridhar Reddy, Krishna Reddy and Ranganatha Reddy and the printed FIR was marked as Ex.P16. The FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 03.30 p.m. on the same day i.e., on 14.09.2004, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.8. Investigation of the case was taken over by Muthamizh Mudalvan (P.W.16), Inspector of Police (in short “the I.O.”), who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P6) and the rough sketch (Ex.P17).
2.9. From the place of occurrence, the I.O. seized the following items under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P7):
i. TVS-50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN29 Q 71417 (M.O.8),
ii. a pair of brown colour slipper (M.O.9),
iii. a blood stained stick (M.O.5), and
iv. a small polythene cover containing chilli powder (M.O.10).
2.10. The I.O. conducted inquest over the body of Rajappa and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P18. The body of Rajappa was sent to the Government Hospital, Hosur, where, Dr.Gnanameenatchi (P.W.13) performed autopsy and noted 7 cut injuries all over the body of Rajappa and also detected chilli
The judgment underscores the significance of witness testimony and the corroboration of evidence in establishing guilt. It also clarifies the legal principles regarding delayed registration of an FIR....
In criminal cases, reliance solely on testimony from an interested witness without corroboration may not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law : Murder /Attempt to Murder - Conviction set aside – Delay in filing FIR - unexplained delay in registering the F.I.R. and dispatching the same to the concerned Court, and suppressing tw....
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural delays can undermine the case.
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
Murder – When there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and same has been corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of weapon does not affect persecution case.
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.