Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
GunduViji @ Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by Inspector of Police, R-8 Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai - 600 028. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.554 of 2018|S.C.No.273 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.John Sathyan Senior Counsel for Ms.A.B.Fathima Sulthana
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness testimony and adequate investigation, asserting that reasonable doubt in evidence necessitates acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 341 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants charged in the trial court found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment - Appellants claimed right of private defense and suppression of prosecution evidence - Prosecution's failure to investigate properly and contradictions in witness statements resulted in reasonable doubt regarding guilt - Court ruled that such doubts require acquittal. (Para 30)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Proper investigation - It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to establish the real aggressor when two parties are involved - Failure to adhere to investigative protocols leads to miscarriage of justice - Courts must carefully scrutinize final reports from competing narratives to establish true facts. (Paras 27, 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged A1, A2, A3, and A4 conspired to murder Nageswara Rao due to personal disputes resulting in a violent attack. Multiple FIRs were filed leading to conflicting witness statements regarding the events.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was deemed unsafe due to significant doubts cast on the prosecution's narrative, leading to an acquittal.
Issues: The core issue revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the adequacy of the investigation conducted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted the accused, emphasizing that reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case must benefit the accused, particularly given conflicting evidence about their involvement.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and prosecution's claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments by the appellants challenging the conviction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's observations about evidence and witness credibility. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. discussion on investigative shortcomings leading to doubt. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 5. court's decision to acquit due to reasonable doubt. (Para 30 , 31) |
J U D G M E N T
(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.273 of 2016, dated 10.08.2018, the appellants, who are A1, A2 and A4 have filed the present appeal. The appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1, A2 & A4 | Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC | Life imprisonment each and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment |
| Section 341 IPC | Fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week |
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.P.W.1 is the resident of Kumaran Colony. He is residing with his wife (P.W.5), son (P.W.2), another son and daughter. Along with them, his elder brother-in-law Nageswara Rao (deceased) and younger brother-in-law Rajesh (P.W.3) are also residing. One Kowsalya (P.W.18) is the wife of A1 and there was an illicit intimacy between P.W.18 and P.W.3. Offended by that, A1 gave a complaint to the Police on 18.05.2016 alleging that his wife (P.W.18) was missing. When the Police enquired, P.W.18 declined to join A1. Even thereafter, relationship continued between P.W.3 and P.W.18.
2.2.When the matter stood thus, on 08.06.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., A1 along with his two sons (A2 and A3) and his friend Mari (A4) came to the house of P.W.1 and asked about P.W.3. Besides, they also abused him. Immediately, the deceased Nageswara Rao, Rajesh (P.W.3) and his friend Nagaraj (P.W.4) went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint in this regard. On the same night, while P.W.3 and the deceased Nageswara Rao were returning to the house after giving the complaint, the accused A1 to A4 waylaid them at about 11.30 p.m. in front of Kalpatha Apartments and fought with P.W.3 and the deceased. A1 to A4 beat the deceased with wooden logs (M.O.1) on the head, body and legs, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and thereafter, A2 hit the deceased head with a cement slab (M.O.2), due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over the body. Immediately, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.
2.3.P.W.1 called the Ambulance and the deceased was taken to the Kilpauk Government Hospital, where he was declared dead at 1.20 a.m. on 09.06.2016 and P.W.22 (Medical Officer), who examined the deceased, issued Ex.P7 (Accident Register). When P.W.1, along with family members, reached the hospital, it was informed that Nageswara Rao had died.
Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) before the respondent Police.
3.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1), Mr.Pasupathy, Inspector of Police (P.W.27) registered an FIR (Ex.P12) in Crime No.821 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 IPC as against Vijayakumar (A1), Abishek (A2), Rohith (A3) and Mari (A4). After registration of FIR (Ex.P12), P.W.27 took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 5.00 a.m. on 09.06.2016 and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14) in the presence of P.W.7 and Rough Sketch (Ex.P13). He seized the blood stained earth, ordinary earth and the cement slab which was used to hit the deceased (M.O.2) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P15). Thereafter, he sent the collected material objects to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.P16). Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body and issued inquest report (Ex.P17). Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem through one Sankar, Head Constable (P.W
