Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Raghunath - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2022
POCSO Act - Criminal Appeal - Sections 341, 307, 506(ii) IPC - [341, 307, 506(ii) IPC] - The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused based on contradictions in the evidence, including the nature of the victim's injuries and the timing of the accused's arrest.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting the victim with a knife, causing injuries. The victim worked with the appellant and had refused his advances. The appellant attacked the victim in revenge, leading to the filing of a case under Sections 341, 307, and 506(ii) IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in the evidence, including the nature of the victim's injuries and the timing of the accused's arrest, creating doubt over the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Contradictions in evidence, timing of the accused's arrest, nature of the victim's injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the contradictions in the evidence, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case and favored the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charges. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand terminated, and any fine amount paid is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Special Court for cases under POCSO Act / Children’s Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.270 of 2017.)
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Special Court for cases under POCSO Act / Children’s Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.270 of 2017.
2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in the above referred sessions case. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 30.07.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Special Court for cases under POCSO Act / Children’s Court, Chennai, came to the conclusion that the appellant is found guilty under Sections 341, 307 and 506(i) IPC, convicted and sentenced him as follows:
| Offence | Sentence |
| 341 IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month |
| 307 IPC | To undergo simple imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. |
| 506(i) IPC | To undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. |
| The trial Court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently. | |
Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court, by way of filing this Criminal Appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) The complainant/injured Suchismita was staying at Lakshmi Ladies Hostel situated at No.22/14, Bagavantham Street, T.Nagar and was working in Ashok Leyland Technical Centre at Manali New Town, Villivayalchavadi, Chennai, as a Development Manager. The accused was also working in the same company as a Contractual Worker. The accused, the complainant and other employees regularly travel in the company bus for reaching their company. The accused had one sided love with the injured Suchismita and offered chocolates to her on his birthday. The injured refused to receive the same. The accused regularly attempted to chat with the injured, but the injured did not respond to the same.
(ii) One day, while at the time, the injured was getting into the bus, the accused proclaimed that she had insulted him in front of everyone and shouted like anything. So, the injured lodged a complaint before her superior officers. After receipt of the said complaint, the accused was sent back to Induja Company, through which he was deputed to the present company. At the end, after seeing the report sent by the Ashok Leyland Company, the Induja Company dismissed the accused from the service. Thereafter, the accused was hunting for job at several places, but, as he could not secure any job, he got more angry against the injured and decided to take revenge by murdering her.
(iii) In order to execute the same, on 22.03.2017, he came to the place of occurrence in a Hero Honda Passion Pro Bike bearing Regn.No.TN03 C 8165 and was waiting for the arrival of the injured. When at the time, the injured was in the occurrence place, around 6.20am, the accused restrained her and told her that she spoiled his life and by stating so, repeatedly stabbed on her stomach, left hand and attempted to murder her by causing injuries. When the public came to the rescue of the injured, the accused showed the knife and threatened that he would kill them, if they try to catch him.
(iv) On seeing the said incident, PW1 managed herself and returned back to the hostel. Thereafter, she went to the hospital with her friend Saranya in a Auto and got admitted there, wherein PW12-Dr.Jeshija Roy, examined and found the following injuries.
Soft tissue injuries -multiple
1) Deep laceration abdomen left - 3 lacerations
a)
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the evidence can raise doubts about the case.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
Point of law: There may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has ....
The appellate court modified the conviction from attempted murder to lesser charges due to insufficient evidence of intent, thus reflecting on the critical importance of establishing motive and eyewi....
The judgment establishes the importance of eyewitness testimony and the requirement of proving common intention under Sec. 34 of IPC. It also emphasizes the need for clear evidence to establish the g....
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
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
