Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79829
MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Pugalendhi, J
Murugan V. N. v. Palpandi and Others
Criminal Appeal | S.C.No.353 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Anand, Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Mariappan, Mr.R.Anandharaj
Error in trial court's acquittal due to failure in establishing motive and reliance on contradictory evidence; appellate court reversed this based on judicial principles protecting against unjust acquittals.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 391 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 341 - Acquittal challenged - The acquittal of accused 1 to 8 for violent assault leading to death was overturned, citing failures in prosecution's reliance on evidence and witness credibility as critical. (Paras 1, 11, 17)
(B) Conviction - Principles governing appeal against acquittal - Presumption of innocence upheld unless proven beyond reasonable doubt; appellate courts maintain reluctance to disturb trial court findings unless egregiously erroneous. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal originated from the acquittal of several accused involved in a violent encounter resulting in the death of Muthukumar, following a dispute involving the arrest of a relative. Witnesses attempted to intervene but were also injured. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
Court noted prosecutorial lapses in establishing motive and delays in FIR and ruled that the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds for acquittal was misplaced. The appellate court intervened to correct these shortcomings. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: Key issues included the establishment of motive, credibility of eyewitnesses, and whether the prosecution’s case was undermined by procedural lapses. (Paras 11-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized that evidence contradicting the trial court's conclusion on acquittal was significant, especially regarding witness credibility and procedural integrity. (Paras 15-16)
Result: The acquittal was set aside and accused 2 to 8 were convicted and sentenced. (Paras 18-24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for appeal challenging acquittal (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments defending acquittal of accused (Para 7) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and conduct (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. legal principles governing appeal against acquittal (Para 12 , 18) |
| 6. final conclusions and sentencing (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant [PW1] as against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, namely, the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.353 of 2011. The trial Court tried the respondents 1 to 8 / accused for the charges framed as under: 
In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, by judgment dated 28.04.2017, found the respondents 1 to 8 / accused not guilty for the charges framed against them and acquitted the accused. As against the same, the complainant [PW1] has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
2.1. Thiru Murugan [PW1] is the father of the deceased, Muthukumar and Thiru Nandakumar [PW2] is the brother of the deceased. One Murugan @ Thavanaimurugan is the Nephew of PW1 and he was arrested by the Avaniyapuram Police in connection with a case in Crime No.438 of 2007 for the offence under S.306 IPC and S.3(1)(X) of SC / ST Act on 14.11.2007. Thavanaimurugan and his Cousin, the deceased / Muthukumar were under the impression that on the information provided by the first accused, Thavanaimurugan was arrested by the Police and therefore, the deceased went to the place of the first accused, Palpandi, to enquire about the same, where, the third accused, Ramachandran @ Matti Ramachandran and the fourth accused, Vilvadurai were also present and a problem arose. On 17.11.2007 at about 07.00 pm, when the accused 2 & 4 were crossing the house of one Muthu, the deceased along with his friend Muthu and two others is said to have assaulted them by saying that they only responsible for the arrest of Thavanaiurugan, with Aruval and Knife and caused injury. They also informed the same to PW1.
2.2. At about 09.30 pm, on the same day, the deceased Muthukumar was not available in the house and therefore, PW1 went in search of him along with his second son, Nandakumar [PW2]. They found the accused surrounding the deceased, attacked the deceased indiscriminately. PWs 1 & 2 attempted to prevent the attack and they have also been assaulted by the accused. On seeing the incident, one Mani @ Wireman Mani [PW4], Murugan @ Saudhi Murugan [PW5] and N.Murugan [PW6] raised alarm and therefore, the accused persons flew away from the place of occurrence with the weapons. One Muniyandi [PW3] resident of Anupanadi Housing Board took the injured and the deceased to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital.
2.3. Dr.Benedic Resi [PW23], who was on duty at Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital on 17.11.2007, provided first aid to the injured and reported the death of the deceased. Since Muthukumar was reported as dead, PWs 1 & 2, without taking further treatment, went to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Dr.Ashokachakravarthy [PW18], who was on duty at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, attended PWs 1 & 2 in the Hospital at about 12.15 am and issued the Accident Registers Ex.P28 for PW2 and Ex.P29 for PW1 and also gave intimation to the Police.
2.4. One Pandi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station [PW20] received information from the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, at about 01.45 am on 18.11.2017, went to the Hospital around 02.30 am and recorded the statement from PW1, who was taking treatment in the Hospital and the same was attested by PW2. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.538 of 2007 as against the respondents 1 to 8 / accused for the offence under S.147, S.148, S.341, S.307 & S.302 IPC.
2.5. On receipt of the first information report in Crime No.538 of 2007, the Inspector of Police, A
