Charge
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N.PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Rajendran & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai - Respondent
Crl.A(MD).No. 212 & 232 of 2019 & Crl.M.P(MD).Nos. 7065 & 7066 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Criminal Appeals - Murder - 120(b), 148, 341, 302, 307, 323 IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case, the feud between the appellants and the deceased, the brutal attack, medical evidence, investigation, and the defense's contentions. The court analyzes the evidence of injured eyewitnesses, the role of an unlawful assembly, and the psychological impact on witnesses. The court dismisses the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased and the appellants were involved in a longstanding feud. The appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the deceased and others, resulting in the death of the deceased. The injured witnesses provided crucial testimony. The defense raised various contentions, including discrepancies in the evidence and alibi for the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the injured witnesses' testimony to be reliable and accorded it due weight. The court addressed the defense's contentions, emphasizing the psychological impact on witnesses and the significance of the injured witness's evidence. The court dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the injured witnesses' testimony, discrepancies in the evidence, the role of an unlawful assembly, and the impact of the psychological trauma on witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of the injured witnesses' testimony, highlighting their presence at the scene of the crime and the impact of psychological trauma. The court also addressed the defense's contentions, emphasizing the need for a balanced assessment of the evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The respondent police was directed to secure the accused and produce them before the trial Court for committal to prison.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 in S.C.No.165 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer[Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases], Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.)
Common Judgment:
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 in S.C.No.165/2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer[Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases], Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. The Trial Court framed six charges, as detailed below.
| Charge | Penal Provisions | Accused |
| 1 | 120(b) IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 2 | 148 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 3 | 341 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 4 | 302 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 5 | 307 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 6 | 323 IPC | A4 |
2. By judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed below:
| Section of Law | Accused | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 148 IPC | A1 to A7 | Rigourous Imprisonment for one year each. | Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. |
| 341 IPC | A1 to A7 | Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each. | Rs.500/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. |
| 304(I) | A1 to A3 | Life Imprisonment. | Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. |
| 304(I) r/w 149 IPC | A4 to A7 | Life Imprisonment. | Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. |
| 326 IPC | A1 and A6 | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. | Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. |
| 326 r/w 149 IPC | A2 to A5 and A7 | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. | Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in these Criminal Appeals.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell runs as follows:
i. The deceased Chelladurai and the appellants are residents of Koothinipatti Village. The deceased Chelladurai and Thiru.Murugesan (P.W-6) are brothers. Thiru.Punniyamurthy (P.W-1) and Thiru.Nagaraj(P.W-2) are the sons of P.W-6. Tmt.Kalavathy (P.W-3) and Kasthuri (P.W-4) are the wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. The accused 1 to 7 are all related to each other. Both the appellants and the above said witnesses are all residing at Koothinipatti Village and belong to same community.
ii. The appellant Rajendran (A1) was the Panchayat President during 2015 and was also involved in the profession of stone cutting. The victim (deceased Chelladurai) was prevented from erecting a flex banner for the marriage of one Balraj (DW1), a relative of the victim/deceased. This started a feud between the appellants and the deceased and continued during every temple festival when the appellants used to collect funds from the villagers for conduct of 'Annadhanam'. There were complaints and counter complaints by both sides and the Annavasal Police had to pacify both sides brokering a truce. In 2017, the appellants collected Rs.200/- from each house for conducting 'Annadhanam' on account of Tamil New Year, leaving the family of the deceased. Since they did not collect any amount from the house of the deceased, the deceased lodged a complaint on 12.05.2017 with the Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station and the police advised both the groups to conduct 'Annadhanam' jointly. The prosecution version is that this escalated tensions on both sides leading to the murder of the victim by A1 to A7. Though the victim's family favoured a compromise, the appellants' family did not agree to it and the first appellant refused to conduct any festival during the said year.
The significance of the injured witnesses' testimony and the impact of psychological trauma on witnesses were central to the judgment.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
The court determined that while the appellants participated in an unlawful assembly leading to death, their intent was not murder, qualifying the offense under culpable homicide not amounting to murd....
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
Credibility of eyewitness accounts and refutation of the appellant's claim of murder for gain were central to the court's decision.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the evidence of injured witnesses to be reliable and free from material contradictions in order to sustain a conviction.
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