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
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.
(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
Marudanal Augusti vs State of Kerala
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Harjinder Singh v. State of Gujarat
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to reasonable doubt.
(1) While appreciating evidence in criminal cases, there cannot be a strait-jacket formula. Evidence must be appreciated from perception of a prudent common man.(2) Conduct of a stranger eyewitness t....
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable eyewitness testimony and proper identification procedures to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In prosecutions involving serious charges, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence or lack of corroboration can lead to acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
A conviction in a criminal case cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that evidence is categorised as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and lacks further i....
Conviction requires not just evidence of guilt but also an established motive and reliable eyewitness accounts; procedural inaccuracies can compromise the prosecution's case.
Section 208 prescribes by clause (i) that the statements and confession recorded under Section 161 or Section 164 shall be supplied to the accused, free of cost.
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.