Madras High Court
N.Kesavan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2018
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Date of Pronouncing the
Judgment Judgment
13.11.2019 15.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
1.N.Kesavan
2.K.Nagarajan : Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its
the Inspector of Police
Kenikarai Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
Crime No.259/2011 : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.01.2018 in S.C.No.
05 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
Ramanathapuram.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.5/2012, dated 10.01.2018.
2. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:
S. Rank of the Provisions Sentence of Fine amount No accused under which imprisonment convicted 1 A-1 302 IPC Life Rs.20,000/-, in imprisonment default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year 2 A-2 302 r/w 34 IPC Life Rs.10,000/-, in imprisonment default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months Brief facts of the prosecution case:
3. There was a rivalry in the milk business between A-2 and the 2/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 deceased Anandan. On 01.06.2011, a Cow belonging to A-2 had trespassed into the property of the deceased Anandan resulting in a wordy quarrel. The wife of the deceased (P.W.-6) was beaten up and the same was questioned by the deceased. Thereafter, A-2, who is the father of A-1, had sent a word to A-1, who was living in Chennai. He came over to his native place and it is stated that there was a conspiracy hatched by A-1 to A-3 to do away with the deceased Anandan. Pursuant to the conspiracy, A-1 is said to have borrowed a new unregistered two wheeler. On 03.06.2011, at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased was drinking tea in the shop belonging to P.W.-1, who is his father-in-law. Thereafter, he took his two wheeler (M.O.-4) at about 7.15 a.m. and within five minutes, the accused persons followed the bike in the unregistered new motorbike. Immediately, the mother-in-
law of the deceased (P.W.-2) intimated P.W.-1 that there is a possibility that the accused persons may attack the deceased Anandan. Therefore, P.W.-1 took his motorbike and P.W.-2 accompanied him and they followed the accused persons. Near Vairavankoil, the deceased Anandan saw the accused persons following him and he (deceased) dropped his two wheeler and started running towards the house of one 3/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 Rakkappan (P.W.-3). The accused persons also dropped their bike and started chasing the deceased Anandan. They restrained Anandan and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 started shouting to the accused persons not to commit any harm to the deceased Anandan. However, A-1 is said to have attacked the deceased Anandan with knife (M.O.-1) in his left neck. Hearing the noise, the villagers started coming to the place and the accused persons are said to have ran away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased died on the spot. This incident is said to have taken place at 7.30 a.m.
4. The father-in-law (P.W.-1) gave a complaint (Ex.P-1) to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-19) on 03.06.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.259/2011 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. In the complaint, P.W.-1 had specifically named A-1 and A-2. The express FIR (Ex.P-12) was handed over to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-15) and he handed over the same to the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram, at about 9.30 a.m. The information was passed on to the Inspector of Police (P.W.-23) and he took up the investigation 4/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P-5) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.-14) in the presence of witnesses (P.W.-13). He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-15). He handed over the body to the Head Constable (P.W.-17) with a requisition to conduct the postmortem and to hand over the body to the relatives. The Investigating Officer also collected the bloodstained soil (M.O.-6), ordinary sample soil (M.O.-7) and the two motorbikes (M.O.-4 and M.O.-5) under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.-6). He had sent all the material objects to the Court under Form
95. The Investigating Officer was only the in-charge Inspector of Police and he handed over the investigation to the regular Inspector of Police (P.W.24).
5. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-24) took up the investigation on 07.06.2011 and he recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He received the information that the accused persons had surrendered separately before the Judicial Magistrate Courts at Rameshwaram, Mudukulathur 5/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 and Madurai respectively. Immediately, steps were taken to take police custody of A-1. A letter was given to the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram on 07.06.2011 and an order was passed on 09.06.2011 granting police custody. A-1 voluntarily gave a confession in the presence of witnesses (P.W.-14) and based on his confession, the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.-8). Thereafter, A-1 was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. A-2 and A-3 were taken on police custody on 10.06.2011 and they voluntarily gave a confession in the presence of witnesses and they took the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence and explained the manner in which the incident had taken place.
6. Thereafter the Investigating Officer made a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate to send the material objects to the forensic laboratory. He proceeded to record the statement of the Doctor and other witnesses. The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.-4); Biological Report (Ex.P.-10) and Serological Report (Ex.P.-11). He completed the investigation and had 6/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. Thereafter, the case was committed to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.
7. In the meantime, A-3 had died and therefore, the charges abated and only A-1 and A-2 faced the charges before the trial Court. The material documents along with the final report was furnished to A-1 and A-2 under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and charges were framed. The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W.-24 and marked Ex.P.-1 to x.P.-18 and exhibited M.O.-1 to M.O.-7.
8. The appellants (A-1 and A-2) were questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating materials that were collected during the course of trial were put to them and they denied the same as false.
9. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that the prosecution has established the 7/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants in the manner stated supra. The appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 120(B) read with 302 IPC.
10. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, made the following submissions:
● The prosecution had mainly relied upon the version given by the eyewitnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and both these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence, since it took place more than ½ a kilometer from the tea shop.
● The evidence of P.W.-3 Rakkappan shows that there were three or four persons, who had attacked the deceased Anandan and they all ran away, after the incident and he did not see the appellants in that crowd.
● P.W.-3 also speaks about the presence of Sniffer Dog and that itself shows the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in the scene of 8/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 occurrence to be false and such Sniffer Dogs are engaged only where the identity of the accused is not known.
● The motorbike that was driven by the accused persons is said to belong to one Babu and he was not examined in this case.
● The prosecution has attempted to connect the motorbike which stood in the name of Babu by virtue of the evidence of P.W.-20, who is the Sales Manager of Subalakshmi Bajaj Company. There was no evidence to connect the vehicle belonging to Babu and the accused persons.
● P.W.-2, in her evidence, has stated that several villagers had come to the scene of occurrence after the incident, hearing the cries and not a single independent witness supported the case of the prosecution.
● The prosecution has examined P.W.-4 in order to establish the previous dispute between the parties. This witness has not 9/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 stated anything about the fight between the deceased Anandan and A-2 before the Investigating Officer and for the first time, he states before the Court. This witness is an interested witness and he is the maternal uncle of the wife of the deceased.
● The wife of the deceased (P.W.-6) speaks about the dispute between one Velmurugan (brother of A-1) and her husband (deceased). She did not state this before the Investigating Officer and Velmurugan was not examined by the prosecution.
● The injuries as spoken by the Doctor (P.W.-8) and the postmortem certificate shows that there are only two cut injuries and the same is not capable of being inflicted upon the deceased, who is said to have been stabbed with M.O.-1 knife.
● P.W.-13, who was the Mahazar witness, has specifically spoken about the presence of sniffer dog in the place of occurrence from 9.00 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. His evidence also shows that the accused persons were not identified and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have 10/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 not seen the incident and therefore, the version given by the eyewitnesses is false.
● The prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants will have to be acquitted from all charges.
● The learned counsel, in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.A.(MD) No. 244/2011, dated 20.12.2012, in Chinnadurai v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam, Pudukottai District.
11. Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, made the following submissions:
● The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is clear, cogent and there is absolutely no contradiction and even in the cross-examination 11/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 their evidence has not been discarded and therefore, the prosecution has established the case from the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
● The defence has not put any question with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased by showing the knife (M.O.-1) to the Doctor and therefore, they cannot, at this stage, question the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased with the knife (M.O.-1).
● The Serological report makes it clear that the knife (M.O.-1) contained human blood and the blood group was identified as 'O', which coincides with the blood group of the deceased.
● There was absolutely no delay at any stage and the investigation had taken place in an effective manner and the accused persons had surrendered before three different Courts and that itself will show the attitude of the accused persons.12/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 ● The previous dispute between the parties has been specifically spoken by P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-6 and the prosecution has clearly established the motive behind the crime.
● The prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubts and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion:
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court.
13. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. They are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Both of them have spoken about the earlier dispute between the parties. It is important to independently analyze the 13/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 evidence of both these witnesses and test whether they have really seen the incident.
14. The father-in-law of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.-1, has stated as follows, when he was examined in chief:
“mg;NghJ Mde;jd; Bf;filapy; B rhg;gpl;Ltpl;L taputq;Nfhtpy; mUfpy; fUNty kuk; cs;snjd;Wk; mij thq;fpf;nfhz;L tUfpNwd; vd;W nrhy;yptpl;L b.vz;.65-
n[ 3119 vd;w igf;if fhiy Rkhh; 7¼ kzpastpy
vLj;Jf;nfhz;L Mde;jd; nrd;whh;. Mde;jd; nrd;w 5
epkplj;jpy; ek;gh; gpNsl; ,y;yhj ,Urf;futhfdj;jpy; Nfrtd; tz;bia Xl;b ngah; Nfl;Lj;njhpe;j jpNd\; vd;gtUk;> ehfuh[d; vd;gtUk; xNu igf;fpy; gpd;njhlh;e;J Nghdhh;fs;. jpNd\; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[hpy; ,y;iy. Mtiu ghh;j;jhy; milahsk; njhpAk;. ehd; vdJ kidtpaplk; Mde;jid gpd;njhlh;e;J ehfuh[d;> jpNd\;> Nfrtd; igf;fpy; nry;fpwhh;fs; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. mjw;F vd; kidtp Mde;jid mbj;jhYk; mbg;ghh;fs; vd;W nrhy;yp igf; vLq;fs; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. ehd; vdJ ,Urf;fu thfdj;ij vLj;Jf;nfhz;L ehDk; vdJ kidtpAk; nrd;Nwhk;. taputq;Nfhtpy; Cuzpf;fiuahd;tyir mUNf vdJ kUkfd; Mde;jd; mth;fs; tUtij vg;gbNah ghh;j;Jtpl;lhh;. mth; igf;if fPNoNghl;L tpl;L kpuz;LNgha; uhf;fg;gd;14/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 tPl;bw;Fs; xopa Xbdhh;. mth; tPl;bd; ,uz;L fjTfs; %l;bapUe;jd. Mde;jd; mjdhy; jpUk;gp te;jhh;. Me;j %d;Wegh;fSk; Mde;jd; igf; mUfpy; mth;fSila igf;if Nghl;Ltpl;L ehfuh[Dk;> jpNd\;FkhUk; ,uhf;fg;gd; tPl;bw;F cs;Ns Nghd Mde;jid kiwj;jhh;fs;. thrw;gbapy; itj;J Mde;jid kiwj;jhh;fs;. ehq;fs; gpd;njhlh;e;J nrd;W xd;Wk; nra;JtplhjPh;fs; vd;W fj;jpNdhk;. Nfrtd; jhNahop ePnay;yhk; vq;fs; tPl;by; te;J rz;ilNghl;Ltpl;L capNuhL ,Ue;JtpLthah vd;W rj;jk;Nghl;L kug;gbNghl;l fj;jpahy; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; Fj;jpdhh; vd;W rhl;rp rhl;rpak; mspj;jhYk; mth; ,lJgf;f fOj;ij fhz;gpj;J Fj;jpajhf nrhd;dhh;. me;j fj;jpjhd; vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ. me;j fj;jp rh.ngh.1. rz;lyhg; ghtpg;gaNy ,g;gb Fj;jptpl;lhNa vd;W ehq;fs; ,UtUk;
kiwj;Njhk;. cq;fis fj;jpahy; Fj;jptpLNtd; vd;W
kpul;bdhh;. Cu;ff
; huh;fs; tUtij rj;jj;ij Nfl;L fj;jpia
cUtpf;nfhz;L Nkw;Fg;gf;fkhf Xbtpl;lhh;fs;. ehd;
Mde;jid J}f;fpghh;jN
; jd;. Mde;jd; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;.”
14.1. This witness has clearly spoken about the incident in his chief-examination. When he was cross-examined by the accused persons, he has clearly reiterated the incident and he did not contradict himself at any place in the cross-examination. It will be 15/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 relevant to extract the portions of the cross-examination of P.W.-1.
“,we;J Nghd vdJ kUkfd; vdJ Bf;filapypUe;J nry;Yk;NghJ fhiy 7.15 kzp ,Uf;Fk;. mg;nghOJ ehDk;
vdJ kidtpAk; Bf;fil ntspNa
tilNghl;Lf;nfhz;bUe;Njhk;. vdJ kUkfd; nrd;W 5
epkplk; fopj;J ek;gh; gpNsl;L ,y;yhj ,Urf;fu thfdk; te;jJ. mjw;fpilapy; NtW igf; vJTk; tutpy;iy. mjw;F Kd; me;j thfdj;ij ghh;j;jpy;iy. mjd;gpwFjhd; ehd; vd; kidtpaplk; tpraj;ij nrhd;Ndd;. me;j ek;gh;
gpNsl; ,y;yhj thfdk; nrd;w 5 epkplj;jpy;
ehq;fs; ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; nrd;Nwd;. ,Urf;fu
thfdj;jpy; nry;ytpy;iynad;why; ,e;j rk;gtj;ij
ghh;j;jpUf;f KbahJ vd;why; rhp.
.......
md;iwa jpdk; Nfzpf;fiu fhty;epiyak; mUNf
Ngg;giu thq;fp Gfhh; vOjg;gl;lJ. mg;nghOJ fhiy 8.45>
9.00 kzp ,Uf;Fk; ehd; nrhy;y nrhy;y Gfhh; vOjg;gl;lJ. Gfhiu cl;fhh;e;Jnfhz;L ghyj;jpy; vOjpdhh;. vdJ kUkfd; ghy; tpahghuk; nra;fpwhh;. mh;r;Rzd; ghy; tpahghuk; nra;atpy;iy. mh;r;Rzd; jhd; ghy;tpahghuk;
nra;jhh; vd;Wk; vdJ kUkfd; ghy;tpahghuk;
nra;atpy;iynad;W nrhd;dhy; rhpay;y. khl;Lj;jfuhW
vdf;F Nehpilahfj; njhpAk;. khL vq;fs; tPl;bw;Fs;
te;jjhy; jhd; rz;ilnad;why; rhp. ehd; nrhd;dkhjphp ve;j
16/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
khl;LjfuhW vJTk; fpilahJ vd;Wk;> mh;r;Rzd;
nrhy;ypj;jhd; khl;Lj;jfuhW ele;jjhf nrhy;fpNwd; vd;why; rhpay;y.” P.W.-1 has withstood the cross-examination and the evidence of this witness has not been discarded in the cross-examination.
15. The next relevant witness in this case is the mother-in-law of the deceased (P.W.-2). She was the one, who accompanied P.W.-1 in the motorbike and she was the one, who anticipated that the deceased will be attacked by the accused persons, who were following his bike in an unregistered motorbike. This witness has almost reiterated the same facts as stated by P.W.-1, in the chief-examination. Therefore, it becomes important to see whether she has contradicted herself in the cross-examination. The relevant portion in the cross-examination is extracted hereunder:
“vdJ kUkfd; igf; fple;j ,lj;jpypUe;J 10> 20 mb J}uj;jpy; vq;fsJ igf;if Nghl;Nlhk;. NghyPrhh; tUk;NghJk; ehd; mq;Fjhd; ,Ue;Njd;. NghyPrhh; ve;J vq;fs; igf;if ghh;f;ftpy;iy. vdJ kUkfd; igf;> ek;gh; gpNsl; ,y;yhj igf; ,uz;Lk; xd;wpd;xd;wpd;Nky; fple;jJ. mg;gb igf; fple;jJ kl;ilntwpr;rp Xuj;jpy; fple;jJ.17/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 ......
vq;fs; tz;b fpof;Nf fple;jJ. 20 mb J}uj;jpy; vdJ kUkfid Fj;jpdhh;fs;. fj;jpia mjw;F Kd; ehd; ghh;j;jjpy;iy. fj;jpapy; kug;gpb Nghl;bUe;jJ vd;gij NghyPrhh; tprhuizapy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;. me;j fj;jpia rk;gtj;jd;W ghh;j;jJjhd;> ,g;NghJ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhd; ghh;f;fpNwd;. NghyPrhh; tprhuizapy; vdJ kUkfd; Nghd nfhQ;rNeuj;jpy; igf;fpy; te;jhh;fs; vd;Wk; vdJ kUkfid mbj;jhYk; mbj;JtpLthh;fs; ehKk; NghfNtz;Lnkd;W vdJ fzthplk; nrhd;djhf NghyPrhh; tprhuizapy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;.” The evidence of P.W.-2 is also clear and cogent and it corroborates the evidence of P.W.-1.
16. P.W.-3, in his evidence, has spoken about the sound which he heard from the scene of occurrence and three or four persons running away from the scene of occurrence and he found the dead body of the deceased in front of his house lying in a pool of blood. However, this witness has stated that the persons, who ran away from the scene of occurrence, are not the accused persons. The evidence of this witnesses can be taken into account for the purpose of establishing the fact that the dead body was found in front of his house and that three 18/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 or four persons ran away, after the incident. The location at which the incident had taken place is also corroborated by the observation mahazar (Ex.P-5) and the rough sketch (Ex.P-14).
17. The motive behind the crime has been clearly spoken by P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4, P.W.-6 (wife of the deceased), P.W.-9 and P.W.10. A reading of their evidence clearly shows that there were quarrels between the family members of the deceased and A1 and A-2 and previously Velmurugan, who is the brother of A-1, had also slapped the deceased and the matter also went before the police station and it was interfered by the elders and the complaint was dropped in the police station. This has been clearly spoken by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact that there was a previous dispute between the parties and therefore, there is a motive behind the incident.
18. The recovery of M.O.-1 knife has been spoken by the Investigating Officer P.W.-24, who took A-1 on police custody, after he surrendered before the Court. The confession and recovery has also 19/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 been spoken by the witness P.W.-14. This witness specifically states in his evidence about the recovery of knife (M.O.-1) and he has also withstood the cross-examination that was done on the side of the accused persons. The knife that was recovered was sent to the forensic laboratory and the serological report, which was marked as Ex.P.-11, clearly shows the presence of human blood in the knife and the blood has been identified to belong to 'O' Group, which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. This clearly corroborates the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 with regard to the weapon that was used by A-1 to attack the deceased persons.
19. In this case, the incident had taken place at about 7.30 a.m. and the complaint was given before P.W.-19 at about 8.30 a.m. and the express FIR had reached the Court at about 9.30 a.m. That apart, the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded from the material witnesses had reached the Court on 06.06.2011 itself. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay at any point of time right from the registration of the FIR and therefore, there is no question of any deliberation through which the accused persons have been roped in. Even in the complaint, the name 20/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 of A-1 and A-2 have been specifically stated. Therefore, this Court is not able to see any materials in order to show that the accused persons in this case have been falsely implicated.
20. The evidence of the postmortem Doctor also assumes significance. The postmortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P-4 reveals the following injuries found in the body of the deceased:
“1.Temple region near left eye a cut injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm
2.A cut injury over left side of neck 4 x 3 x 2 cm retracted ends of large blood vessels seen.
Ecchymosis around carotid vessels seen.
3.Right side forehead a linear abrasion 5 x ½ cm seen.” The postmortem Doctor has opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to major blood vessels. 21/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
21. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the weapon that is said to have been used in this case was a knife (M.O.-1) and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated that the deceased was stabbed with a knife. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injuries that were found in the body of the deceased, particularly, injuries 1 and 2 could not have been caused with a knife and it has been clearly described as cut injuries. A reading of the evidence of the Doctor shows that no questions have been put to the Doctor as to whether the injuries found in the body of the deceased could be caused with M.O.-1 knife. This issue should have been clarified with the Doctor and the same has not been done in this case. This Court is not an expert to ascertain whether the injuries that have been recorded in the postmortem certificate could be caused by M.O.-1 knife. In the absence of any questions being put to the Doctor in this regard, this Court cannot assume that such injuries could not be caused with M.O.-1 knife. Even otherwise, in view of the clinching evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, a mere doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, cannot prove to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
22/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018
22. The Sales Manager of Subalakshmi Bajaj Company has specifically stated in his evidence about the finance availed by one Babu for the purpose of purchasing the two wheeler. Even though Babu was not examined in this case, it is seen from the records that Babu had infact filed an application for return of the vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate Court and it was dismissed by an order dated 21.11.2011. Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.C.No. 21/2011 before the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, and the same was allowed by an order dated 01.02.2012. This clearly shows that the owner of the motorbike (M.O.-5) was none other than Babu. Therefore, the non-examination of Babu in this case is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
23. The next issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is presence of the Sniffer dog in the scene of crime. For this purpose, the learned counsel had relied upon the evidence of P.W.-13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there was no necessity for summoning the sniffer dogs, if the accused persons 23/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 have already been identified. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court referred supra. The facts of the case in the case law that has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellants shows that the Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who were shown as eyewitnesses. The Court was not inspired with their evidence and therefore, this Court had taken an adverse inference regarding the presence of the sniffer dogs and held that there was no necessity for the police to procure the services of the sniffer dogs.
24. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 clearly inspires the confidence of this Court. Therefore, merely because there was a sniffer dog in the scene of occurrence, that will not take away the evidentiary value of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The case law that has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellants will not apply to the facts of the present case.
Conclusion:
25. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of 24/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The trial Court has analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in a detailed manner and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
26. In the result, the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, made in S.C.No.5/2012 dated 10.01.2018, is hereby sustained and this criminal appeal is dismissed.
27. This Court had suspended the sentence and enlarged the appellants on bail by order dated 10.04.2018 and the appellants are, therefore, directed to immediately surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram to serve the sentence. If the appellants do not surrender before the Court below, the respondent police is directed to secure the appellants and produce them before the Court below in order to enable the Court below to send them to 25/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 custody to serve the sentence.
[S.V.N., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
15.11.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police Kenikarai Police Station Ramanathapuram District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
26/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J RR Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 15.11.2019 27/27 http://www.judis.nic.in