2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J
B.SARAVANAN @ CITY SARAVANAN – Appellant
Versus
IOP VILLIVAKKAM PS CH – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.04.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.A.Nos.625, 763 & 811 of 2018
1. B.Saravanan @ City Saravanan ...Appellant in Crl.A/625/2018/
Accused no.4
2. Siva Saravanan @ Koodaikal Saravanan ... Appellant in Crl.A/763/2018 Accused no.3
3. Dhilip @ Dhilipkumar ...Appellant in Crl.A/811/2018 Accused No.1 vs.
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049, (Crime No 802/2010) ...Respondent/Complainant in all Crl.A's Common Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 04.07.2018 imposed in S C No.200 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVII Additional sessions Judge, at Chennai.
In Crl.A's:
For Appellants : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Additional Public Prosecutor C OMMON J UDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN,J.
These Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused 1, 3 & 4, challenging the conviction and sentences imposed upon them vide judgment dated 04.07.2018 in S.C.No.200 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3 (i).It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Murali Krishnan and one Gopi Krishnan, were sons of PW1 and PW2; that the deceased and the accused were friends and one month before the occurrence, A3 attacked the deceased, which was questioned by his brother Gopi Krishnan, as a result of which, there was a quarrel and enmity between the accused and the deceased; that in order to avoid the accused, the deceased and his brother Gopi Krishnan shifted their residence; that on 10.09.2010, the deceased along with PW3 (his brother-in-law) came to the house of PW1 and PW2 (his parents) to take a gas cylinder and after taking the cylinder, while they were returning to his house around 8.30 a.m. in a motor cycle, A1 and A4 wrongfully restrained the deceased and PW3 pushed them down; that the other accused attacked the deceased with deadly weapons, which resulted in the death of the deceased.
(ii) It is further the case of the prosecution that PW1 and PW2, who witnessed the occurrence, admitted the deceased in the hospital and thereafter, gave a complaint Ext.P1 to the police. The said complaint was received by PW14, the Investigation Officer at 11.00 a.m. who registered the FIR (Ext.P.20) in Crime No.802 of 2010 for the offences under Section 341, 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC. PW14, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ext.P21 and rough sketch, Ext.P.22 and examined other witnesses. Thereafter, he seized the bike (M.O.1) ridden by the deceased at the time of occurrence and the gas cylinder (M.O.2) under Seizure Mahazar Ext.P.23. At 4.00 p.m he conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared Inquest Report, Ext.P.24. He thereafter, made a requisition for conducting post-mortem and the post-mortem was conducted by the Doctor, P.W.13, who issued the post-mortem certificate, Ext.P.19.
(iii) on 14.09.2010, PW14 came to know that the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. He filed a petition seeking police custody. He took the accused under police custody between 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 and on the confession of the accused recovered the material objects M.O.3 to M.O.7. He seized the blood strained clothes of some of the accused under Seizure Mahazar and after obtaining reports from the experts in the forensic science laboratories, Ext.P.29 and Ext.P.30, he filed the final report before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 08, for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC against 10 accused.
(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, a