Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Muthu - Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai & Others - Respondent
Crl.A. (MD). No. 306 of 2019
Decided On : 27-09-2022
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC - [Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 34 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the illicit relationship and the motive, and there was no definite proof of the poison being mixed with the alcohol consumed by the deceased. The judgment emphasized that acquittal reiterates the innocence of the accused and interference is only warranted in case of glaring infirmity or perverse finding.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order acquitting the accused persons from charges under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The deceased had an alleged illicit relationship with A1's wife, and A1 and A2 conspired to kill the deceased by adding pesticide to the liquor he consumed, resulting in his death. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of concrete evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the illicit relationship and motive, and there was no definite proof of the poison being mixed with the alcohol consumed by the deceased. It emphasized that acquittal reiterates the innocence of the accused and interference is only warranted in case of glaring infirmity or perverse finding.
Issues: Failure to establish illicit relationship and motive, lack of concrete evidence of poison being mixed with the alcohol consumed by the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal reiterates the innocence of the accused and interference is only warranted in case of glaring infirmity or perverse finding.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal stands dismissed, and the judgment and order of the trial court acquitting the accused persons from charges under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC is confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2019 in S.C.No.12 of 2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.)
Nisha Banu, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, made in S.C.No.12/2010, dated 08.09.2010, acquitting the accused persons from charges under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
2. This appeal was initially filed by the father (P.W-1) of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the father died and this Court proceeded to hear the appeal since P.W-2 is a victim and was the mother of the deceased.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and the deceased Kumar @ Sasikumar are well known to each other. The deceased is said to have stayed in the house of A1 on many occasions. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 developed an illegal intimacy with one Muthumeenal, who was the wife of one Murugesan. The deceased is said to have seen A1 and the said Muthumeenal together. He had threatened A1 that he will inform the illegal intimacy to his wife and A1 pleaded with the deceased not to reveal about the relationship to anyone. However, the deceased had spoken about the relationship to the mother of A1 and some others belonging to the locality.
4. A1 on coming to know of the same, got enraged against the deceased and decided to do away with him. Hence, A1 had informed about his intention to A2 and both of them entered into a criminal conspiracy. Pursuant to the same, they called the deceased on 27.10.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., and took him to the scene of crime and informed the deceased that if he consumes one full bottle of liquor, he will be paid a sum of Rs.300/-. The deceased believed A1 and A2 and they all met along with Selvam and Radhkrishnan near PRP Granites. While the deceased was consuming liquor, A2 is said to have added pesticide to the liquor. The deceased not knowing the same, consumed the liquor in entirety and he fell down. The deceased was taken in his vehicle and was dropped in the house of A1. Thereafter, in order to conceal the entire incident, A1 and A2 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai. It was found that the deceased died due to consumption of pesticide which was detected as Organo Phosphorus poison.
5. A complaint was given by P.W-1 in this regard and an FIR came to be registered. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed and charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 120 (b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W-15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.
6. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, acquitted the accused persons from all charges. Aggrieved by the same, P.W-1 filed a revision petition before this Court and the same was converted into an appeal against acquittal.
7. Heard Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
9. The deceased was the adopted son of P.W-1. This witness also knows about the accused persons and their relationship with the deceased. The Court below, on appreciating the evidence of P.W-1, came to a conclusion that there were two complaints given by this witness. The first complaint was given to the Panchayat President on 27.10.2008 at 10.15 p.m., to the effect that his son died due to severe abdominal pain and the next day, yet another complaint was given at 1
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Perfunctory trial court acquittal without discussing eyewitness evidence warrants appellate remand for fresh judgment.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with an order of acquittal, even if it believes that there is some evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for positive acts of instigation or aid as per Section 107 of IPC to establish abetment for suicide.
The mere existence of illicit relations does not amount to abetment of suicide unless it can be shown that such relations constituted mental cruelty severe enough to drive the spouse to take their ow....
The necessity to prove intentional aid by the accused for conviction under Section 306 of IPC and the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a dying declaration requires corroborative evidence to be deemed reliable.
The prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused, as inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt.
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
