Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 395
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
S. Palanichamy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others – Respondents
Crl.A. (MD) No. 547 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2024
For the Appellant : B. Janarth Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent:RMS. Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor, R.L. Dhilipan Pandian, K. Arunraj, M. Karunanithi, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of comprehensive appreciation of evidence, the need for circumstances to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence to exclude any reasonable ground for innocence. The judgment also emphasized the principles to be followed while deciding an appeal against acquittal as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC Online 130).
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - Section 372 of Cr.P.C. - Section 148, 341, 302, 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [148, 341, 302, 149, 3(2)(v)] - The court discussed the principles of appreciating evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the criteria for deciding an appeal against acquittal. It highlighted the importance of comprehensive appreciation of evidence, the need for circumstances to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence to exclude any reasonable ground for innocence. The court also emphasized that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless it is perverse or bereft of reasoning, and summarized the principles to be followed while deciding an appeal against acquittal as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC Online 130).
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the father of the deceased Muthukumar against the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused. The incident involved a case of rioting with a weapon and murder, and the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the assailants in court. The injury found on the deceased did not match the prosecution evidence, leading to the trial Court's acquittal of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution case was loaded with inherent contradictions and improbabilities, and the circumstances were far from conclusive. It emphasized that to sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused 'must have' committed the offence, and no 'may have'. As the facts under consideration only supported the view of the trial Court, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the prosecution witnesses to identify the assailants, the inconsistency between the injury found on the deceased and the prosecution evidence, and the principles to be followed while deciding an appeal against acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of comprehensive appreciation of evidence, the need for circumstances to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence to exclude any reasonable ground for innocence. It also highlighted the principles to be followed while deciding an appeal against acquittal as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC Online 130).
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed based on the court's finding that the circumstances were far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them.
JUDGMENT :
G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records and set aside the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Tirunelveli, in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2015, dated 27.04.2017, and consequently, convict the respondents 2 to 4 by imposing maximum punishment provided under the law.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the father of the deceased Muthukumar on being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused.
2. Facts in nutshell:-
2.1. Based on the complaint given by one Duraimurugan (P.W.1), a case in Crime No.342 of 2015, dated 26.04.2015, was registered by the first respondent Police against the respondents 2 to 4, and 2 other juvenile in conflict with law. According to the F.I.R., a month ago, when he and his nephew Muthukumar, a resident of Bharathinagar, Manapparai, travelling in a two wheeler, the vehicle accidently hit one Arun @ Arunpandian (A1) of Vadakupatti Village. Then, wordy quarrel erupted between them. Thereafter, there was subdued feud between them. On 26.04.2015, at about 07.00 p.m., when P.W.1, his brother Thangadurai (P.W.9) along with the deceased Muthukumar and others were preparing for the Mariamman Temple festival, Arun @ Arunpandian (A1) and Balaji (A3) came in a two wheeler rashly and stopped near Muthukumar. They reprimanded them and sent them away. After the Temple festival, while they were returning back to home, at about 10.00 p.m., near the house of Duraisamy Chettiar, Viralimalai Road, Manapparai A1 to A3 along with others armed with wooden log and knife attacked Muthukumar (deceased), Palaniappan (P.W.3), Harikrishnan (P.W.4) and Vignesh (P.W.5). The injured persons were taken to the Manapparai Government Hospital. The doctor examined Muthukumar and declared him brought dead. Other injured persons were given first aid.
2.2. The first respondent Police on completion of investigation, filed final report. The case was committed to Court of Sessions at Tiruchirappalli. Based on the material collected during the investigation, the following charges were framed by the trial Court:
Against A1 to A3: For rioting with weapon and murder of Muthukumar. Offences punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C.; Section 341 I.P.C.; and Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Against A3: For causing grievous hurt to Palaniappan (P.W.3) using weapon. Offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.
2.3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses. 30 documents and 11 material objects were marked. The copy of the petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15848 of 2015 filed by the appellant before the High Court of Madras Madurai Bench was marked through the appellant (P.W.2) as defence document.
2.4. Before the trial Court, the first informant P.W.1, who supposed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, failed to identify the assailants. He had denied knowledge about the earlier incident of quarrel between the deceased and the first accused, which is found in the complaint Ex.P1. He had deposed that the assailants came in a bike and attacked him and others. There is no evidence to prove that he sustained injury in the incident.
2.5. P.W.2, who is the present appellant, is a hearsay witness. According to him, he came to know about the incident through P.W.1. He has no direct personal knowledge about the earlier incident or the incident, which ended in homicide of his son. His entire testimony does not reveal any evidence worth admissible. The other injured witnesses, who were taken to the Government Hospital, Manapparai are Palaniappan (P.W.3), Harikrishnan (P.W.4) and Vignesh (P.W.5). None of these witnesses had incriminated the accused persons. They had deposed that while returning back to home after attending the Temple festival, they were attacked by a gang with wooden l
