Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1593
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
M. Udayakumar & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theni - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 70 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:N. Mohideen Basha, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Appellants:N. Mohideen Basha, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need to carefully consider the motive and circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - 302 IPC, 307 r/w 34 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for the murder of the deceased and causing injury to another individual. The deceased's family had a history of enmity with the accused due to a previous criminal complaint against one of the accused for molesting a family member. The accused attacked the deceased and the injured individual in front of their house, leading to the deceased's death. The prosecution alleged that the accused pushed the deceased's body into the house after the attack.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious doubts in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies, discrepancies in the timing of the occurrence, and inconsistencies between the witnesses' accounts and the medical evidence. The court concluded that the entire prosecution was unreliable and that the accused were unnecessarily implicated due to previous motives. The court acquitted two of the accused and convicted the remaining accused under a lesser charge of Section 304(i) IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the timing and location of the occurrence, and the motive behind the attack. The court also considered the involvement of all accused and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the serious doubts raised in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies, discrepancies in the timing of the occurrence, and inconsistencies between the witnesses' accounts and the medical evidence. The court also considered the previous enmity between the families and the motive behind the attack.
Final Decision: The court acquitted two of the accused and convicted the remaining accused under a lesser charge of Section 304(i) IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The court set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC for the remaining accused.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Court (Session Fast Track) Theni, made in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 15.12.2020.)
R. Subramanian, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / A1 to A3 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 15.12.2020, made in S.C.No.50 of 2014, by the Mahila Court (Session Fast Track) Theni.
2. The appellants / A1 to A3 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:
| Conviction U/s. | Sentence | Fine amount | |
| A-1 & A-2 | 302 IPC | To undergo life imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment. |
| 307 r/w 34 IPC | To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. | |
| A-3 | 302 r/w 34 IPC | To undergo life imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment. |
| 307 IPC | To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. |
3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) The deceased is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the daughters of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.5 is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.7 is the brother of P.W.1. A1 and A2 are brothers and A3 is their father. The accused and the deceased are residing in the same village in the opposite houses. In the year 2011, when P.W.3 went to the school, A1 eve-teased her. Hence, a police complaint was given against A1 and he was arrested for allegation of molesting P.W.3. Due to such arrest, the accused developed enmity against the deceased's family. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 and P.W.2 arranged marriage for P.W.3 and prior to the marriage, when they were about to put up a panthal in front of their house, the accused heaped crushed stone and sand in front of the deceased's house. When the same was questioned by the deceased, A1 came with aruval-M.O. 1 and cut the deceased on the right hand and also chest, A2 came with crowbar-M.O.3 and caused injury on the back of the deceased and A3 carried aruval-M.O.2 and attacked P.W.2 on the forehead and left shoulder. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the house itself. P.W.1 to P.W.7 are the eyewitness to the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 with the help of P.W.15, lodged a complaint-Ex.P1 to P.W.21-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2012 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC under Ex.P20-FIR and forwarded the FIR to the Court and copy to the superior officer.
(ii) P.W.19-Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, admitted P.W.2 and noted 6 x 3 x 2 cm laceration on the left forehead and 10 x 10 x 6 cm laceration on the left shoulder and he issued Ex.P.19. Before P.W.19, P.W.2 stated that she was attacked by a known person.
(iii) P.W.23, after receipt of FIR, commenced investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P14 in the presence of P.W.14, drew a rough sketch-Ex.P23, collected blood stained cement concrete and ordinary cement concrete from the place of occurrence, conducted inquest over the dead body, prepared inquest report-Ex.P.24 and forwarded the dead body to the hospital for autopsy. P.W.22- Doctor conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:
“1. An oblique cut injury size 11 cms x 6 cms x cavity depth. seen over the right chest 1cm above right nipple. Margins were regular. Both end were pointed with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves.
On dissection of the chest:-
Fracture of ribs 3rd, 4th and 6th on right side was cut through and through with surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves, right lung.
An oblique cut injury size 8 cms x 4 cms x 3 cms seen over the right lung in its lower as
