Crl.A.No.150 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 24.01.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 02.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

CRL.A.No.150 of 2015

Venkatachalam

... Appellant/1^st accused

Vs.

State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Sipcot Police Station,

Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.240/2010)

... Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment

of conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District in

SC.No.18 of 2011 dated 09.03.2015.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Rajamohan

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Murthi

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

***

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.150 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the conviction and

sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District on 09.03.2015 in SC.No.18 of

2011.

2. There are totally four accused in this case. The appellant is the 1^st

accused. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2010 at about 11.00 p.m

accused 1 to 3 murdered one Pasavaraj (who was the husband of the 2^nd

accused) by conspiring with the 4^th accused. The motive for the occurrence is

said to be the illegal intimacy of the 1^st accused with the 2^nd accused, which

was disliked by the husband of the 2^nd accused and he reprimanded them. In

pursuant to the conspiracy among the accused 1 to 4, the accused 1, 2 and 4

went to the house of the 2^nd accused in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing

Registration No.TN 27-D 5009. After entering into the house of the 2^nd

accused, A4 caught hold of the legs of the deceased Pasavaraj by preventing

him from escaping; the 3^rd accused pressed his face with a pillow and the 1^st

accused and 2^nd accused strangulated and killed him. In order to cause the

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.150 of 2015

disappearance of the evidence, the accused 1 to 4 took the dead body of the

deceased Pasavaraj in the Tata Sumo to Balacury village and on the way the

vehicle hit on a tree and stopped. Thereafter, the accused ran away.

2.1. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused

for the offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) and 201 IPC. The case

was taken cognizance and copies were furnished. The charges were framed

against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) and

201 IPC and when the accused were questioned and they pleaded not guilty.

2.2 During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17

witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW17 and Exs.P1to P19 were

marked and M.O.1 to 16 were marked. After concluding the trial and after

considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the

1^st accused guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC alone and convicted

and sentenced him by imposing a punishment of 7 years R.I along with a fine

of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine and to undergo one year R.I. The

other accused have been acquitted and the first accused was acquitted from all

other charges framed against them. Aggrieved over that, the first accused has

preferred the present appeal.

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.150 of 2015

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the

entire materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the

charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC have been framed based on the same

evidence and when the charge of murder itself not accepted, the accused

cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC alone. In support of

his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Co