Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Veerappan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.68 of 2017 & 844 of 2016
Decided on : 16-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Jaya Kumar in Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and evidentiary shortcomings, leading to their acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148 and 307 - Criminal conviction challenged in appeals - Initially convicted for offences under Section 148 and 307, case remitted for 'de novo' trial - Convicted for Section 307 with 10 years rigorous imprisonment - Trial court's findings challenged on grounds of contradictions and infirmities in prosecution evidence. (Paras 2, 3, 8)
(B) Appeal - Burden of proof - Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of crucial evidence questioned; no explanation for delays in submitting medical records. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that on 10.04.2000, the appellants attacked P.W.1 over a financial dispute, leading to serious injuries - Conviction and sentence were appealed due to perceived evidentiary shortcomings. (Paras 4-4.5)
Findings of Court:
The evidence was deemed insufficient, with critical gaps preventing reliance on witness accounts and lack of valid medical documentation warranting acquittal. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the prosecution's case was free from contradictions and adequately substantiated with evidence sufficient to uphold a conviction under Section 307. (Paras 6, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidence shortcomings; consequently, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted of the charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment date and appeal origins (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the case facts (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and contradictions (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. appellants' claims of prosecutorial inconsistencies (Para 6) |
| 5. final decision and acquittal of appellants (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
R. HEMALATHA, J.
1. Challenging the Judgment and orders passed in S.C.No.25/2003, dated 09.12.2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants / Accused.
2. Initially the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal convicted both the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 I.P.C., vide his Judgment dated 29.09.2003 in S.C.No.25/2003, as against which, the accused filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.1641 of 2003 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Selvam, as he then was) remitted the case back to the trial Court to conduct a 'de novo' trial vide his Judgment dated 07.09.2015.
3. Accordingly, the trial was conducted after framing a charge only for an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., against the appellants and they were convicted and sentenced as detailed hereunder:
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 Veerappan | Section 307 I.P.C | Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. |
| A2 Muthu @ Pachamuthu | Section 307 I.P.C | Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. |
| The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. |
4. The case of the prosecution in a condensed form is as follows :
4.1. Thiru.Thangavel (P.W.1) is a resident of Kumarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal. The first accused Veerappan was working under him and had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,000/- from him. Since the first accused was not regular to work, P.W.1 requested him (A1) to repay Rs.4,000/-. On 03.03.2000, there was an altercation between the two in a public place for which the Police registered an FIR against both of them in Crime No146/2000 of Kumarapalayam Police Station under Section 160 I.P.C. Subsequently, it ended in compromise.
4.2. Thereafter, on 10.04.2000, at about 8.30 p.m. when P.W.1 was in a TV show room belonging to one Mohanraj (P.W.2), the first appellant and the second appellant along with four others, trespassed into P.W.2's TV shop and attacked P.W.1 with iron rods and wooden logs. P.W.1 attempted to escape from the place, but was stabbed by the 2nd appellant with a knife while the other persons (not shown as accused) attacked him with iron rods and wooden logs, on account of which, he fell down and was again attacked with an Aruval by the 1st appellant. Since Mohanraj (P.W.2), Chandrasekaran (P.W.3) and Kesavan (P.W.4) and the general public rushed to the spot, all the assailants made good their escape taking their weapons with them.
4.3. P.W.1 was rushed to Government Hospital at Erode.Thiru.Balasubramaniyan, (P.W.7) the then sub Inspector of Police, Kumarapalayam Police Station on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital, Erode, went over there and recorded the complaint statement (Ex.P1) of P.W.1 and registered FIR (Ex.P10) in Crime No.228/2000 against the appellants and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C., He then placed the records before Thiru.Lakshmanan, (P.W.8), the then Inspector of Police for investigation.
4.4. P.W.8 took up investigation, went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P11) in the presence of the witnesses Masilamani (P.W.5) and one Saravanan (not examined). He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements individually under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
4.5. P.W.1, thereafter got himself admitted in L.K.M. Hospital, Erode (a Private hospita
