BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Sappani @ Murugesan & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal(MD). Nos. 355 & 352 of 2020, 27 & 29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 & 258 of 2022
Decided On : 29-04-2022
Joint Trial - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 302, 34, 396, 120(b) of IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were convicted for offences under Sections 302 of IPC read with Sections 34, 396 and 120(b) of IPC. The charges were related to the murder of a Sub Inspector of Police and an attack on a Head Constable. The accused filed appeals to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in not conducting a joint trial for the two sessions cases, resulting in procedural irregularities and documents being interchanged. The court set aside the judgments and remitted both cases for a joint trial, directing the trial court to complete the trial within three months.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, failure to conduct a joint trial, and technical defects in the trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to conduct a joint trial resulted in serious illegalities and technical defects in the trial process, leading to unfairness and prejudice to the accused. The court exercised its power to order a joint trial to ensure a fair trial and minimize the prejudice caused to the accused.
Final Decision: The judgments in both sessions cases were set aside, and the cases were remitted to the trial court for a joint trial with a direction to complete the trial within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.)
Common Judgment
1. All these appeals are filed by the accused persons who have been convicted for offences under Sections 302 of IPC read with Sections 34, 396 and 120(b) of IPC. There were 8 accused involved in S.C.No.27 of 2007 in which, the charge against the accused persons was that they murdered one Subramanian, Sub Inspector of Police, on the fateful day. A2 and A8 died pending trial and A7 was acquitted of all the charges. The other accused persons namely, A1 and A3 to A6 have come up with the appeals. There was another incident of attack on a Head Constable Mr.Bose that has preceded the attack on the Sub Inspector of Police on the same day, for which, a case was registered in Crime No.53/2006 which was later converted to Sessions Case No.28 of 2007. The accused therein were charged for the offences under Sections 307, 392 read with 395 and 397 of IPC. The accused in S.C.No.28/2007 are the same persons as in S.C.No.27 of 2007. Here also, A2 and A8 died pending trial and A7 was acquitted of all the charges. All other accused were punished with imprisonment for a period of 7 years. While A1, A3 and A6 have come up with the appeals, A4 and A5 have undergone the sentence.
2. In S.C.No.27/2007, a complaint was lodged by PW1 Mr.Bose who is the injured Head Constable in the other case namely, S.C.No. 28/2007. According to him, while he was returning to the police station by around 07.00 p.m., on 28.04.2006, he was waylaid by the accused persons near Nanthicheri bus stop and was attacked by them. They tied him up with a lungi and took his motorcycle away. They also took away some of his valuables. After sometime, he managed to escape and walked up to the village. Upon reaching the village, he had informed one Neelamegam-PW22 and Parameswaran-PW16. They, in turn, informed PW2-Sub Inspector of Police-Malar of the attack. She assembled Constables and went to Nanthicheri bus stop, there, they found the S
In criminal cases, convictions must be based on evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; substantial contradictions undermine the prosecution's case.
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omis....
Separate trials for offenses arising from the same transaction violate procedural principles, necessitating correction to avoid miscarriage of justice. Identity of victims must be established with ad....
(1) Order of retrial wipes out from record earlier proceeding and exposes present accused to another trial – Retrial cannot be ordered merely on the ground that prosecution did not produce proper evi....
Joint trials are acceptable for closely related offences, but accused must demonstrate prejudice due to any procedural irregularities for a trial to be invalidated.
The fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial and the discretion of the court to order joint or separate trials based on the stage of the trial and potential prejudice to the accused.
The court ruled that trials may be conducted together under Section 223 Cr.P.C. but should remain separate if the accused differ between a police report and a complaint case, to avoid prejudice.
Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge to try offences under Section 307 IPC upheld; testimony of injured witnesses sufficient for conviction.
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.