Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
G. JAYACHANDRAN, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Chinnadurai & Others - Appellants
Versus
The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udayalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai & Others – Respondents
Crl. A. (MD)No. 51 of 2020, Crl. R.C. (MD)No. 218 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Criminal Revision - Conviction and Sentence - Section 341, 324, 302, 326 r/w 34 I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the evidence of witnesses, contradictions in the prosecution case, and the reliability of the injured witnesses. The court found reasonable doubts in the prosecution case and acquitted the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a quarrel in a wine shop leading to a fatal attack on the deceased and injuries to the witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence of the injured witnesses and other evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the injured witnesses was unreliable and bristled with material contradictions, leading to reasonable doubts in the prosecution case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the injured witnesses, contradictions in the prosecution case, and the identification of the weapons used in the attack.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the injured witnesses must be treated on a higher pedestal, provided their evidence does not bristle with any tinkering of fact or embellishment. In this case, the court found that the evidence of the injured witnesses was unreliable and contradictory, leading to reasonable doubts in the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted from all the charges. Bail bonds were cancelled, and any fine amount already paid was to be refunded to them. Consequently, the Criminal Revision was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records connected with S.C.No.96 of 2017, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Full Additional Charge), Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, and enhance the sentences imposed against the respondents 2 to 5/A1 to A4 in accordance with law.)
1. The appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.96 of 2017, dated13.12.2019.
2. On 29.10.2016 at about 03.00 p.m. in the wine shop at Killukottai Village, the first accused Chinnadurai and the deceased Karthikeyan had a quarrel. The deceased called his friend Arunkumar (P.W.1) over phone and informed him about the quarrel. P.W.1 along with his other friends Veeramani (P.W.2), Ajeethkumar (P.W.3) and Aravind (not examined) all belong to Sengalur Village, came to the wine shop and questioned A1 why he attacked Karthikeyan. On seeing this, Periyarasu (A2), Krishnamorthi @ Moorthi (A3) and Kandavel (A4) all relatives of A1 and residents of Killukottai Village came in support of A1. Thus, the wordy quarrel soon turned into a fist fight. On realising the fight turning to worst, the elders nearby advised them not to fight on the Deepavali day and told them to disperse. When P.W.1 and others left the place, A1 threatened them how dare they come to his Village and quarrel. He swear not to allow them to leave the Village. Karthikeyan and his friends went to nearby shandy rested for 10 minutes and then, proceeded to their Village in their two wheelers. The accused A1 to A4 armed with swords and aruval stopped them near Nondi Muniswaran Temple and prevented them from proceeding further. A1 attacked Karthikeyan with the sword on the head. When Veeramani (P.W.2) tried to stop the assault, A1 gave him two blows with the sword, one on the right forearm and another on the left hand. A1 further incited the other accused 2 to 4 not to leave anyone alive. As a consequence, A2 hit Karthikeyan with aruval on the right side of the head repeatedly. A3 hit Karthikeyan on the right ear with the sword. A4 attacked Ajeethkumar (P.W.3) with the sword. The Arunkumar (P.W.1) sustained injury on his left shoulder, forehead, right back and left forearm when A4 swing the sword at him. A1 also attacked one Mathi (not examined) with the sword on his back.
3. In the incident, Karthikeyan died. Veeramani (P.W.2) and Mathi (not examined) sustained simple injuries. Arunkumar (P.W.1) sustained grievous injury. Based on the evidence of the injured witnesses to the recovery of material objects based on the confession of the accused persons, recovery witnesses and the medical reports and other evidence, the trial Court held the prosecution has proved the charges and sentenced the accused persons as under:-
|
A1 | Section 341 I.P.C. : One month simple imprisonment. Section 324 I.P.C. (1 count): One year rigorous imprisonment. Section 302 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment with Rs.1,000/- fine. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
|
A2 | Section 341 I.P.C.: One month simple imprisonment. Section 302 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment with Rs.1,000/- fine. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
|
A3 | Section 341 I.P.C.: One month simple imprisonment. Section 302 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment with Rs.1,000/- fine. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
|
A4 | Section 341 I.P.C.: One month simple imprisonment. Section 326 @ 324 I.P.C.: One year rigorous imprisonment. Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment with Rs.1,000/- fine. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
4. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 to A4 had preferred the Crl.A.(MD)No.51 of 2020. The de-facto complainant Arunkumar (P.W.1) not satisfied with the sentence imposed for causing a grievous injury to him, had filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.2
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the evidence of injured witnesses to be reliable and free from material contradictions in order to sustain a conviction.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
Failure to properly examine delay in lodging FIR can be fatal to prosecution.
The significance of the injured witnesses' testimony and the impact of psychological trauma on witnesses were central to the judgment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
