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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Thirupathy Balaji @ Venkatesan & Others - Appellants
Versus
State by: The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai & Others – Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 110, 1191, 1219, 1317, 292 & 739 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 18499 of 2023 In Crl. M.P. No. 1317 of 2023
Decided On : 13-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.K. Sriram, Anantha Narayanan, N.A. Nissar Ahmed, G. Uma Maheswari, S. Shiek Ismail, V. Rajmohan, S. Senthil Murugan, S.M. Nandhie Devhan.
For the Respondents: A. Gokulakrishnan.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence, caution in relying on a chance witness, and the impact of lapses in the investigation on the prosecution's case.

Headnote:

Conspiracy - Criminal Appeals - Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(B), 324, and 302 of the IPC - The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution, the lapses in the investigation, and the reliability of the sole eyewitness, ultimately setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused, in conspiracy, committed a murder due to prior enmity and various illegal activities exposed by the deceased. The sole eyewitness, PW1, witnessed the occurrence and lodged a delayed complaint, leading to the arrest and conviction of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the prosecution was unreliable due to the lapses in the investigation, contradictions in the witness testimony, and the delayed complaint. The court also noted that the sole eyewitness's presence at the scene of the occurrence was doubtful, and her testimony was not reliable.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the credibility of the sole eyewitness, and the lapses in the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for caution in relying on a chance witness, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the impact of lapses in the investigation on the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants, acquitting them of all charges and directing their release, citing the unreliable nature of the prosecution's evidence and the doubts raised regarding the eyewitness testimony and investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed by Accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 to 10, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide judgment dated 23.01.2023 in S.C.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3 (i) The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A4 were closely related to each other; that A1 and A2 are brothers; that A3 is the father of A1 and A2; that A4 is the wife of A2; A5 was the driver of the lorry belonging to A2; A6 to A10 were employed in the Diary Farm run by A1; that A1 to A4 had prior enmity towards the deceased and there were many cases instituted against each other; that the deceased was a whistle-blower and had exposed the various illegal activities said to have been committed by A1 and his family members, including land grabbing and illegal sand mining; and that therefore A1 to A4 decided to do away with the deceased with the aid of the A5 to A10.

    (ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that on 01.07.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., all the accused hatched a conspiracy; that in pursuance to the said conspiracy, on 02.07.2012 at about 6.00 a.m, near Singa Muga Theertham Road in Tiruvannmalai to Chengam Road, A1 to A4 and A7 were waiting for the deceased to come there; that A8 went in advance and informed the movements of the deceased; that A6 brought chilli powder; that A10 agreed to surrender A5 and A6, to save A1 and other persons; that all of them formed an unlawful assembly; that A1, A2, A5 to A7 armed with deadly weapons stabbed/cut the deceased who was coming in a motorcycle; A6 put chilli powder on the face of the deceased; that A3 and A4 instigated the other accused to do away with the deceased; that A1 inflicted an injury on the left side of the face and back side of the head of the deceased by using a billhook that A2 inflicted an injury on the left side of the deceased by billhook; that A7 also caused injury on the left hand little finger of the deceased by using a billhook; and that A6 inflicted injury on the left shoulder by using a billhook with the aid of A8 to A10.

(iii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW1, the wife of the deceased, witnessed the occurrence, which took place at about 6.00 a.m. She lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] at 4.00 p.m., which was registered in Cr.No.1051 of 2012 by PW13, the Inspector of Police, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the IPC. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P26.

(iv) PW13 went to the scene of the occurrence at 5.00 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P27] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P28] in the presence of witnesses including PW5 (Kasilingam). He thereafter recovered the motorcycle of the deceased bearing Regn.No.TN25K8958 [M.O.12], a Bag [M.O.13], a Nokia Black coloured Cellphone [M.O.10], an Iron knife [M.O.6], a pair of chappels [M.O.9], a bloodstained spectacle [M.O.11], an Ever-silver water can [M.O.5], a bloodstained soil [M.O.14], soil mixed with chilli powder [M.O.15], soil without bloodstain [M.O.16] and chilli powder packet with a chilli powder [M.O.17], from the place of occurrence under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P29].

(v) PW13 conducted an inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P30]. He sent the body for autopsy by requisition letter [Ex.P31]. He thereafter recovered the apparel [M.O.18, M.O.19 and M.O.20] from the body of the deceased.

(vi) PW13 came to know that A5 and A6 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, on 02.07.2012, and A1 and A2 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 03.07.2012. He made a request to the learned Magistrate to take them into police custody and he took them into police custody on 05.07.2012.

(vii) Ther

                      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