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) 1865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
State represented by The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Ponnuvel – Respondent
Crl.A.No.130 of 2019
Decided On : 17-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan

The presumption of innocence must prevail in appeals against acquittal, requiring compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's decision.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused in a murder case, arguing that the evidence of injured witnesses was reliable and corroborated. The Trial Court found reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and the absence of crucial evidence, leading to acquittal. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 21)

(B) Principles of Appeal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn acquittals if there is compelling evidence of error or illegality in the trial court's decision. (Paras 9, 21)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a property dispute leading to the death of Chandran, where the accused allegedly assaulted him and injured his wife. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts, but the Trial Court found reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 4, 12)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, including the credibility of eyewitnesses and the absence of the accident register. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the significance of the delay in FIR registration, and the implications of missing evidence. (Paras 6, 12, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence must prevail in appeals against acquittal, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 21)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused dated 13.04.2018 in SC.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court [Fast Track Court], Kancheepuram and convict the respondent/accused for the charges framed against him.

The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed in SC.No.14 of 2015 by the Additional Sessions Court [Fast Track Court], Kancheepuram vide order dated 13.04.2018.

2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, are as follows:-

    (a) There was a property dispute between the accused family and the deceased Chandran's family. On 01.04.2014 at about 3.00.p.m, while the son and wife of the deceased Chandran qua PW1 and PW2 were in their residence, the accused developed wordy quarrel with PW2-Kanniyammal. Since PW2-Kanniyammal questioned the high handedness of the accused, he attacked her with Velikathan wooden log on her right wrist and back and thereby, she sustained injuries. When PW1 intervened to protect his mother, she instructed him not to get involved in the quarrel. During such time, the deceased Chandran also returned home, after grazing cattle. On coming, he joined PW2 and questioned the accused. Enraged by such conduct, the accused assaulted the deceased on his head. Immediately, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the demise of deceased Chandran, PW1 took his injured mother PW2 to Uthiramerur Government Hospital, where she was provided with first aid and thereafter, referred to Chengalpattu Government Hospital, where she was admitted as an inpatient for treatment.

    (b) While so, when PW12-Mr.Munusamy, Sub Inspector of Police was in the Uthiramerur Police Station, PW1-Sudhakar and PW2-Kanniyammal came to the police station and gave police complaint-Ex.P1 and the same was received and registered in Crime No.175 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 324 and 302 IPC. After registering the FIR, he made arrangements to forward the same to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and to the Investigating Officer.

    (c) On receipt of the FIR, PW14-Mr.Kumar, Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 02.04.2014 at about 06.15.a.m. He, in the presence of PW3-Natarajan and one Dhanasekar, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P16). On the very same day, at about 7.15 a.m, the Investigating Officer collected the sample soil, as well as the blood stained soil, in the presence of PW4-Chitti Babu and PW5-Ethiraj. He then directly proceeded to the Chengalpattu Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1-Sudhakar, and PW2-Kanniyammal.

    (d) Immediately thereafter, he conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses, and also made arrangements for the postmortem of the body of the deceased. In the meanwhile, at about 2.00.p.m, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused Ponnuvel, in the presence of PW5-Ethiraj and PW6-Shanmugam. After the arrest, the accused has given a voluntary confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of the same witnesses. On the basis of the confession statement, a discovery of fact was effected by recovery of a blood stained black striped white shirt [M.O.2], and blue jeans [M.O.3] under Mahazar Ex.P19. At about 7.00.p.m, the accused was remanded the judicial custody. The Investigating Officer-PW14 examined the Doctors viz., PW9-Dr.Mahesh Ram and PW11-Dr.Sathish Rajan and recorded their statements. He also recorded the statement of the postmortem Doctor-Dr.Balaji Rajasekar [PW10]. After that, he forwarded the alteration report to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

    (e) On his transfer, PW15-Mr.Manimaran took up further investigation and recorded the statements of the scientific officers-Mr.Srinivasan [PW13] and Ms.Subalakshmi and also col

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