Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3757
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Senthilumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station - Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) Nos. 493, 619 of 2019 and 349 of 2021
Decided On : 28-09-2022
For the Appellants : Mr. V. Kathirvelu Senior counsel for Mr. K. Prabhu, Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 341, 506 (II), 302, 294(b) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 (1) (b) – Offence of murder – Case of prosecution is that accused persons were involved in business of selling pork and they seem to have created pollution in locality, while burning pigs – People living in locality had complained about same and accused persons did not heed to their request – Held, Hence, hesitation to stand as an independent witness must be shed and a citizen must take more responsibility to uphold rule of law – Criminal justice system depends upon fair trial and independent witnesses willing to come to Court to give evidence – In absence of same, criminal justice system will collapse and it will only lead to anarchy – Police and Courts must keep this in mind and build confidence in minds of general public that they will not be harassed or tormented if they stand as a witness in a criminal case – In present case, with available evidence, it becomes almost impossible for this Court to hold that prosecution has proved case beyond reasonable doubts – Court is left with no other option except to acquit accused persons from all charges – Criminal appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J. Nisha Banu & N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
These appeals have been filed by A1 to A3 against the judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, made in SC No. 369/2015 dated 13.09.2019, convicting and sentencing them in the following manner :
| Provisions under which convicted | Rank of the accused | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 341 IPC | A1 to A3 | To undergo simple imprisonment for one month each | Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. |
| 302 r/w 34 (2 counts) IPC | A1 to A3 | To undergo imprisonment for life (2 counts) each. | Rs.2,500/- (2 counts), each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. (2 counts) |
| 506 (II) IPC | A1 to A3 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each | Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. |
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were involved in the business of selling pork and they seem to have created pollution in the locality, while burning the pigs. The people living in the locality had complained about the same and the accused persons did not heed to their request. Ultimately, P.W.6 had complained about this to deceased Murugan (D1) and Balamurugan (D2) and they, in turn, complained to the local body and a police complaint was also given in this regard. An inspection was also conducted by the Inspector belonging to the local body and the accused persons were also called to the police station on 24.10.2013 and were warned. This incident was projected as the motive by the prosecution and had developed enmity against the deceased persons.
2.1. On 05.11.2013, P.W.1, who is the son of D1, was informed by one Pandi (P.W.14) that the parties can compromise the matter and they can come over to the house of A3 to hold a discussion. On coming to know of the same, D1 and D2 went together in a two-wheeler on 06.11.2013 at about 9.15 a.m. and they were followed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they were going towards the house of A3. At that point of time, the accused persons waylaid D1 and D2 and abused them in filthy language and they were attacked indiscriminately with aruval M.Os.1 to 3. As a result, D1 and D2 sustained grievous injuries and they died on the spot. Thereafter they ran away from the scene of occurrence.
2.2. A complaint was given by P.W.1, who is the son of D1 and an FIR came to be registered on 06.11.2013 at 9.45 a.m. by P.W.26. The investigation was conducted by P.W.27 and a final report came to be laid against the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. The case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin and it was made over to the Court below. Charges were framed against A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) and 506(II) IPC and a further charge of Section 294(b) IPC as against A1.
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.27 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, besides M.O.1 to M.O.23. The incriminating materials were put to the accused persons, while questioning them under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.
4. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeals have been filed before this Court.
5. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant/A3, learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
6. In the present case, the star witnesses on the side of the prosecution are P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were projected as eyewitnesses. P.W.4 to P.W.6, P.W.11 and P.W.12 were also examined to
