IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Arul - Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Section 304 (ii) IPC, Section 506 (ii) IPC - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, the reliability of the witnesses, and the medical evidence. It highlighted the lack of motive and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence imposed on him for causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, on account of prior enmity, assaulted the deceased and threatened his wife. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and found inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the prosecution's case. It highlighted the absence of a clear motive and raised doubts about the reliability of the witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the presence of a motive, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear motive for the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed the appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody was required in connection with any other case. Any fine paid by the appellant was to be refunded, and the bail bond executed was to stand discharged.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed u/s.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge No. II, Kanchipuram, in S.C.No.18 of 2014 dated 29.06.2017.)
1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge No.II, Kanchipuram in S.C.No.18 of 2014. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as follows:-
Conviction
Sentence
Section 304 (ii) IPC
To undergo Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months.
Section 506 (ii) IPC
To undergo Three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three months.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2013, at about 8:45 p.m., on account of prior enmity, the appellant near the house of his brother, one Manoharan, slapped the deceased, pushed him on the cement road, and stamped him on the chest and the neck of the deceased and caused his death. It is also alleged that during the course of the same transaction, the appellant threatened P.W.1 - the wife of the deceased, that he would cause her death as well.
3. P.W.1 - the wife of the deceased, gave the complaint/Ex.P1, to the Police, which was registered in Crime No.516 of 2013. The FIR was registered on 08.08.2013, at about 1:30 a.m., for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The said FIR was marked as Ex.P.3. The Sub Inspector of Polce - P.W.5, registered the said FIR. P.W.9 - the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. On 08.08.2013, at about 6:00 a.m, P.W.9 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar - Ex.P6. He thereafter went to Kanchipuram Government Hospital, Kanchipuram, where the body of the deceased was kept, and conducted the Inquest. The report was marked as Ex.P8. Thereafter, P.W.7 - Doctor, conducted post-mortem and issued a post-mortem certificate – Ex.P4. The Doctor found the following injuries:
External Injuries
Laceration 2 x 1 x 1 cm on (L) little finger.
Internal Examination
(1). Hyoid bone intact.
(2). Thoracic # (L) 1 to 5 ribs.
(3). Heart 250 gm c/s congested.
(4). Lungs ® Lung 580 gm. 2 puncture wounds 1 x 1 cm each. (L) Lung 480 gm one puncture wound 6 x 2 cm present.
(5). Stomach contains 100 ml yellowish liquid with undigested food.
(6). Liver 1350 gm c/s congested.
(7). Both kidneys 100 gm each c/s congested.
(8). Spleen – 110 gm.
(9). Brain – 1250 gm c/s congested No#.
The Doctor had further opined that the cause of death was due to Hemorrhagic shock and injury to vital organs in thorax (Lungs). Thereafter, P.W.9 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 08.08.2013 at about 12:30 p.m. The express FIR reached the learned Magistrate at about 12.12 p.m., on 08.08.2013. P.W.10 continued the investigation and filed the final report for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (ii) IPC against the accused.
4. The case was committed to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge No. II, Kanchipuram. The Trial Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 506 (ii) of IPC against the appellant. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked ten documents as Exs.P1 to P10. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. No witness was examined on the side of the appellant, nor any document was marked.
6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by Judgment dated 29.06.2017, found the appellant/accused guilty of the offences under Section 304 (ii) IPC and 506 (ii) IPC and con
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including the presence of a clear motive and cre....
: MURDER – CONVICTION UPHELD - number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that what has been done by the appellant is not less than a barbaric act. It is esta....
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Culpable homicide may be reduced to lesser charges under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC when death occurs due to injuries inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation.
The court considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that the accused's actions demonstrated intent to kill, supported by credible eyewitness and medical evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's act did not constitute culpable homicide but fell under Section 323 IPC, leading to the modification of the conviction and sen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt through evidence, including motive, eyewitness accounts, and forensic analysis, and dismisses the defense's plea of alibi and the relevanc....
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.