Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, R-8 Vadapalani Police Station – Respondent
Crl.A.No.501 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. J.William Shakesphere
For the Respondents: Mr. A.Damodaran, Ms. M.Arifa Thasneem
The appeal court acquitted the accused due to doubts about the prosecution's case stemming from investigative failures and witness inconsistencies.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 294(b), and 324 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - The trial court convicted the accused of attempted murder and related offences based primarily on witness testimonies; however, the appeal court found doubts regarding the prosecution's case, including the possibility of an afterthought in the FIR and lack of investigation adhering to procedural guidelines, ultimately concluding that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as the trial court's assessment was flawed. (Paras 16, 20, 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation procedure - Importance of thorough investigation by the police as per Police Standing Orders (PSO 566) is emphasized, noting that failure to identify the real aggressor or follow investigative protocols can lead to miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of attacking P.W.1 and his son during a dispute rooted in personal relationships, resulting in various injuries. The case involved conflicting witness accounts and questions about the timeline and nature of injuries sustained.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's reliance on flawed investigative practices and lack of conclusive evidence led to doubts about the guilt of the appellants, warranting acquittal.
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence presented was reliable and whether proper investigative protocols were followed by law enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inconsistencies and procedural failures in the investigation raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, leading to the conclusion that the accused were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside, and accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and alleged offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants and prosecution. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 3. court observations on the investigation's credibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final legal rationale leading to acquittal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.327 of 2016, dated 10.08.2018, A1 and A2 have filed the present appeal. The appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 & A2 | Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC | Seven years imprisonment each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment |
| Section 294(b) IPC Fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week | ||
| A1 | Section 324 IPC | One year imprisonment |
| The sentences shall run concurrently. |
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.P.W.1 (Vijayakumar) is a resident of Vadapalani, Chennai. A1 (Rajesh) is running a chit business. P.W.1 has taken a chit of Rs.1 Lakh from A1, in respect of which, A1 used to come frequently to the house of P.W.1, as a result of which, A1 got acquainted with P.W.1's wife Kowsalya and this developed into an illegal intimacy between them. On 18.05.2016, P.W.1's wife went missing and therefore, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Police. The next day, i.e., on 19.05.2016, the Police called upon P.W.1 to come to Police Station and at that time, P.W.1's wife refused to join him and went along with A1 in his motorcycle. On 08.06.2016, when P.W.1's younger son (P.W.4) went to a birthday function, A2 (Nagaraj) humiliated P.W.4. On the same night at 9.30 p.m., A1 (Rajesh), A2 (Nagaraj) and one Nageswara Rao came to P.W.1's house and abused him in a filthy language. Thereafter, at 11.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and his younger son (P.W.4) went to a restaurant near Kumaran Colony to buy food, A1 (Rajesh), A2 (Nagaraj) and Nageswara Rao were standing near Kalpatha Apartments and asked P.W.1 as to what business does he have in their area. A1 (Rajesh) was carrying a knife (M.O.1) in his hand. Saying that P.W.1's wife is still with him, A1 tried to attack P.W.1 with the knife (M.O.1). When P.W.2 (Abishek) tried to prevent the attack, he received cut injuries on his stomach and shoulder. Further, A2 (Nagaraj) attacked P.W.1's younger son (P.W.4) with a wooden log (M.O.2), by which, P.W.4 sustained injuries on head. Thereafter, P.W.2 (Abishek) was taken to hospital by P.W.1's uncle's son Sivakumar and P.W.4 (Rohith) was taken to hospital by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 visited Vijaya Hospital, where his elder son (P.W.2) was admitted in ICU. Thereafter, at 4.30 a.m., P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) in this regard, before the respondent Police.
3.According to P.W.2 (Abishek - younger son of P.W.1), when he tried to ward off the attack made by A1 on his father (P.W.1), he received injuries on the left hip. P.W.3 (Mari @ Sivakumar) has also witnessed the occurrence.
4.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by P.W.1, an FIR (Ex.P11) came to be registered in Crime No.822 of 2016 at 4.00 a.m. on 09.06.2016 by Mr.Pasupathy, Inspector of Police (P.W.19) as against Rajesh (A1) and Nagaraj (A2) for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC.
5.After registration of FIR (Ex.P11), P.W.19 took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.18 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he arrested the accused A1 (Rajesh) and A2 (Nagaraj) at 16.15 hours on 09.06.2016. Based on the confession of A1, admitted portion of which is marked as Ex.P3, the Investigating Officer (P.W.19) seized the knife (M.O.1) and wooden log (M.O.2) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P4). Thereafter, he sent the collected material objects to the Court under
