Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vellore District - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 725 of 2013
Decided On : 26-09-2022
For the Appellant:S. Sairaman, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The failure to question the accused regarding crucial incriminating evidence was fatal to the case of the prosecution, leading to the entitlement for acquittal.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Robbery - Section 394, Section 397 r/w 34 of I.P.C. - The court discussed the delay in reporting the incident, the alleged injury to the victim, and the recovery of stolen money and evidence. The failure of the trial Court to put appropriate questions regarding incriminating evidence spoken by crucial witnesses was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused were convicted for robbery at a petrol bunk. The prosecution alleged that the accused robbed cash and caused injury to the cashier. The trial Court convicted the accused, but the appellant contended that the delay in reporting the incident and inconsistencies in the evidence prejudiced the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the failure to question the accused regarding crucial incriminating evidence was fatal to the case of the prosecution, leading to the entitlement for acquittal.
Issues: Delay in reporting the incident, alleged injury, recovery of stolen money, and failure to question the accused regarding crucial incriminating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to put appropriate questions to the accused regarding crucial incriminating evidence was fatal to the case of the prosecution, leading to the entitlement for acquittal.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the accused, and the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed by the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet in S.C.No.250 of 2010 by its judgment dated 20.08.2013.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court, who are arrayed as A1 in Crl.A.No.725 of 2013.
2. Crl.A.No.626 of 2013 filed before this Court by the appellant/Vinod, who is arrayed as A2, reported died. Therefore, the Crl.A.No.626 of 2013 gets abated, vide its judgment dated 09.09.2022.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.04.2010 at about 3.30 a.m., Murugan (A1) along with A2 went to the Petrol bunk to fill fuel to the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-69-Y-8290. After filing up the fuel for Rs.300/-, they gave Rs.1000/- and when cashier of the Petrol Bunk opened the cash box and tried to give balance, A1 wielded knife M.O.4 and under the threat and causing injury to the cashier P.W.1. The accused persons A1 & A2 robbed cash of Rs.28,000/- in the cash box fled away. They resisted the accused persons but accused person left the two wheeler (M.O.1) and one of the accused person's left his slipper. After dropping the weapon used to attack P.W.1, both the accused persons fled away. In this connection, F.I.R was given by P.W.1 at 12 noon and case was registered in Crime No.171 of 2010 for offence under Section 394 of I.P.C. The printed form of the F.I.R (Ex.P.10), the accused persons were arrested. Subsequently, based on their confession, a sum of Rs.5,500/- from A1 and Rs.3,500/- from A2 was recovered under mahazar Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. This was witnessed by P.W.5 (Parameswaran) and P.W.6 (Chandrasekaran).
4. After investigation, final report was filed and case was committed to Sessions Court and taken on file in S.C.No.250 of 2010. The trial Court framed charge against A1 & A2 for offence under Section 397 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
5. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 14 Exhibits, 6 material objects were marked in support of the prosecution case.
6. Before the trial Court, the accused persons contended that, F.I.R was forwarded to Judicial Magistrate on 22.04.2010, after delay of 8 days. The alleged injury to P.W.1 not proved and the recovery of weapon not been proved beyond doubt. Though the evidence for prosecution found contradictory to each other, the trial Court erroneously found accused guilty and convicted for offence under Section 394 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default one month R.I.
7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.725 of 2013, Murugan (A1), contended that, the First Information Report was filed on 14.04.2010 for offence under Section 394 of I.P.C. After investigation, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and framed charge under Section 397 r/w 34 of I.P.C. However, convicted that the accused (A1) for offence under Section 394 of I.P.C. Without altering the charge and without giving opportunity to the accused persons the accused were convicted. Thereby prejudice caused to the accused persons.
8. The delay in reporting the incident alleged to have been occurred at 3.30 a.m., in the morning of 14.04.2010 not properly explained either by the defacto complainant or by prosecution. Coupled with the fact that registered F.I.R was forwarded to the Magistrate, after delay of 8 days, also not been explained. These delay probabilises the version of the prosecution as spoken by P.W.1 is tutored on advice and F.I.R was written on the dictate of the Police present in the Station and not by the informant.
9. Though, P.W.1 (Jagan) claims that, he sustained injury at the hands of 1st accused Murugan, at early morning of the day, P.W.1 went to the hospital only in the evening at 3.00 p.m., nearly 12 hours after the occurrence. According to the witness, when P.W.1 reported the matter to the Police, they
