2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 30738

MADRAS HIGH COURT
BABU@SARAVANAN, M/25 YRS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY ITS – Respondent
CRL A 227 2018

1. Assembling with the intention to commit a crime is an offence under Section 143 IPC. 2. The punishment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine or with both. 3. A delay in filing the FIR may create a suspicion in the minds of the Court as to the claims that had been made by the defacto complainant, the witnesses and the Investigating Officer. 4. The Investigating Officer has a duty to examine all the relevant witnesses and produce all the relevant documents.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 143 IPC - INTENTION TO COMMIT CRIME - MURDER - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304 PART II IPC - DELAY IN FILING FIR - FABRICATION OF COMPLAINT - SECTION 294(B) IPC - OBSCENE ACTS AND SONGS - SPECIFIC OVERT ACT - SENTENCE - SECTION 428 CRPC - SET OFF OF SENTENCE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 302 r/w149 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had voluntarily picked up a quarrel with the victim's cousin brother and that when the victim intervened, the appellants developed an enmity. On the following day, the appellants, on seeing the victim, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons with a common object of committing murder and abused the victim. The victim's brother and wife intervened and were also abused and attacked by the appellants. The victim died due to shock and hemorrhage sustained by multiple injuries.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellants had assembled at the place of incident but did not have the intention to commit a crime. However, their continuance of assembling was unlawful. The Court also found that the appellants had not been armed and that there was no specific overt act against each of the appellants to attract Section 294(b) IPC. The Court further found that there was a huge delay in filing the FIR and that the Investigating Officer had not examined any of the Doctors who had given treatment to the victim or produced any medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the victim at the C.M.C. Hospital. The Court also found that the Investigating Officer had not enquired Kutty Murugan who was the cause for the incident that had taken place on 12.03.2016 & 13.03.2016.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had assembled with the intention to commit a crime?2. Whether the appellants were armed?3. Whether there was a specific overt act against each of the appellants to attract Section 294(b) IPC?4. Whether there was a delay in filing the FIR?5. Whether the Investigating Officer had examined any of the Doctors who had given treatment to the victim or produced any medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the victim at the C.M.C. Hospital?6. Whether the Investigating Officer had enquired Kutty Murugan who was the cause for the incident that had taken place on 12.03.2016 & 13.03.2016?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants had assembled at the place of incident but did not have the intention to commit a crime. However, their continuance of assembling was unlawful.2. The Court held that the appellants had not been armed.3. The Court held that there was no specific overt act against each of the appellants to attract Section 294(b) IPC.4. The Court held that there was a huge delay in filing the FIR.5. The Court held that the Investigating Officer had not examined any of the Doctors who had given treatment to the victim or produced any medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the victim at the C.M.C. Hospital.6. The Court held that the Investigating Officer had not enquired Kutty Murugan who was the cause for the incident that had taken place on 12.03.2016 & 13.03.2016.

Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction & sentence of the appellants as follows:(a) The conviction & sentence of the Court below of the appellants with regard to an offence punishable under Section 147 is modified and they are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 143 I.P.C and are sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of six months each.(b) The conviction & sentence of the appellants 1, 3 & 5 for the offence punishable under Section 302 is modified as offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and they are imposed sentence which they have already undergone. The fine imposed by the Court below is confirmed.(c) The conviction & sentence imposed against the appellants in respecct of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) is set aside.