BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
Syed @ Syed Abdhahir – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.301 of 2020
Decided on : 30-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of this Court delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2020 passed in S.C.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos. 2 and 3/appellants in the judgment dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.49 of 2012 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine , further undergo punishment for 2 years.
2. The appellants herein are the accused 2 and 3 in the trial Court in S.C.No.49 of 2012. They have preferred this Criminal Appeal, against the judgment of conviction, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C, 1973.
3. The appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment. The appellants paid the fine amount. Aggrieved by the above conviction order and sentence, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants A2 and A3.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, all the accused are relatives. They had previous enmity, with the deceased due to a civil dispute. On 04.09.2011, the deceased – Mohammed Yusuf and his friend Hammed Mahaboob, had gone to Ramanathapuram to deposit money to contest the elections. After knowing the same, the Accused Nos. 1 to 6 unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and were waiting for the deceased near S.P.Pattinam bus stand near Siddika Beevi House. On the same day, at about 09.30 pm, the deceased – Mohammed Yusuf and his friend Hammed Mahaboob came in a bus and got down in S.P.Patttinam Bus stand, took their two wheeler. They started moving towards their house. A2 was driving the two wheeler belonging to the third accused. Both A3 and A6 were also sitting in the vehicle and came in the opposite direction to the bike of deceased and dashed against the vehicle, in which, the deceased Mohammed Yusuf and his friend Hammed Mahaboob were traveling.
6. P.W.1 who was waiting near the road side for his son, witnessed the occurrence. Mohammed Yusuf fell down from the vehicle. He was surrounded by A1 to A6 and A6 shouted to A1 that he should not leave Mohammed Yusuf alive. A1 took a knife which was hidden in his hip and stabbed the victim on his chest. The said Mohammed Yusuf, in order to save his live, rushed into house of the witness - Siddhik Beevi. A1 to A3 chased him and went inside the said house and locked the door from inside and indiscriminately inflicted injuries all over the body viz below left chest, near the left nipple, above the ribs, near the cheek, near the right ear etc.
7. P.W.1 raised a hue and cry and tried to enter into the house but was prevented by A6 to A8 from entering into the house. Thereafter, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 rushed to the spot and saw his son in a pool of blood. He lodged the complaint. The F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.70/2011 under section 147, 148, 302 IPC and the same was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.
8. The Inspector of Police, Ramanadapuram, P.W.23 took the case for investigation, visited the place of occurred on 05.9.2021 at 12.30 p.m. It was noticed that the relatives had staged dharna with the dead body. He seized the dead body and sent it to the Thiruvadanai Government Hospital for Postmortem. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of witnesses Sagubar Sadiq, Syed Abdhahir and also drew rough sketch under Ex.P19. He seized the two wheeler TN-09-AR-0290 used by the accused He seiz
Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2019) 8 SCC 529
The prosecution must prove specific overt acts of each accused in a murder case; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
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.
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly – Common object - No doubt section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object various circu....
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
(1) Murder – Evidence of eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature....
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.