SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3182

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

Advocates appeared: For the Appellant :M/s. R. Anbalagan, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

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 credible evidence.

Headnote:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top