Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs State Through on 23 August, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian, N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 08.02.2022
DELIVERED ON : 15.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
1.Balamurugan
2.Jegan ...Appellants /Accused Nos.1 &2
Vs.
State through, Inspector of Police,
Kalakad Police Station,
Kalakad, Tirunelveli
(Crime No.238 of 2014) ... Respondent / complainant.
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.
464 of 2015 dated 23.08.2018.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Venkatesan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 23.08.2018, made in S.C.No.464 of 2015, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.
2. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:
Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine amount
A-1 364 IPC To undergo ten years To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,
rigorous imprisonment in default, to undergo
one year rigorous
imprisonment.
302 IPC To undergo life To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
imprisonment in default, to undergo one
rigorous imprisonment.
A-2 364 IPC To undergo ten years To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,
rigorous imprisonment in default, to undergo
one year rigorous
imprisonment.
302 IPC To undergo life To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
imprisonment in default, to undergo one
rigorous imprisonment.
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) The deceased Ganapathy is the husband of P.W.9. On 30.06.2014, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased in an inebriated condition was lying in front of a temple which is near by the petti shop owned by P.W.3 and P.W.4 husband and wife. In an inebriated stage, the deceased used abusive and filthy language. At that time, the accused 1 and 2 came there and P.W.3 asked the accused to take the deceased and drop him to the bus stand. When the accused tried to lift the deceased, the deceased allegedly abused the accused. Thereafter the accused took the deceased in their bike.
(ii) When the matter stood thus, on 01.07.2014, P.W.1-VAO of Nanguneri, on hearing the news about the dead body found in the graveyard near the mosque, went to the place of occurrence at 9.30 a.m., and found the dead body, found the cloths of the deceased with bloodstain and three pieces of bloodstained bricks and also found the injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased and thereafter, immediately he lodged a complaint-
Ex.P1 before the respondent police. P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police after receiving Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2014 for the offence 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P12-First Information Report and forwarded the FIR to the Court along with Ex.P.13-visceral report.
(iii) P.W.22, Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P. 2 in the presence of P.W.8 and also seized bloodstained clothes and three pieces of bricks under Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazer and has also collected bloodstained earth and ordinary earth under MO.4 and MO.5 in the place of occurrence and has conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P.20 and sent the body for post-mortem with requisition for conducting autopsy over the dead body. P.W.2 is the brother in law of the deceased and he has identified the dead body in the hospital. P.W.17 conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:
“1.Abrasions: 3 x 1 cm seen in front of left shoulder; 1 x 1 cm seen in front of left forearm; 4 x 3 cms seen in right side of forehead; 4 x 3 cms seen in right cheek; 2 x 1 cm seen in front of right ear; 6 x 4 cms seen in middle of fore head; 4 x
3 cms seen in left side of nose; 7 x 6 cms seen in left side of forehead; 6 x 3 cms seen in left cheek; 3 x 2 cms seen in back of left shoulder; 1 x 1 cm seen in back of right shoulder; 6 x 4 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 cms seen in middle back of right side of chest and 2 x 1 cm seen in middle of lower part of neck.
2.Laceration of size 3 x 2 x 2cms seen in right side of fore head near right eye.
3.Laceration of size 3 x 2cm x bone deep seen in left side of hire head.
4.Laceration of size 2 x 2cm x bone deep seen in rout of nose.
5.Laceration of size 3 x 2cm x bone deep seen in lower part of left side of nose.
6.Laceration of size 3 x 2 x 1cm seen in right ear.
7.A curved incised like laceration of size 9 x 1cm x bone deep seen in upper part of right side of back of head.
8.An oblique incised like laceration of size 4 x 1cm x bone deep seen in lower part of right side of back of head. It lies 5cms below injury no. 7 and 5cms behind right ear.
9.A curved incised like laceration of size 5 x 1cm x bone deep seen in left side of upper part of back of head. It lies 5cms left in injury no. 7.
10.A horizontal incised like laceration of size 5 x 1cm x bone deep seen in middle of lower part of back of head.” and issued Ex.P15 Post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to hemorrhage and shock due to head injury and death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Ex.P.13- 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 viscera report also indicates that the stomach, intestine, liver and kidney contains ethyl alcohol. A1 was working under P.W.6, who was a mason. When P.W.6 questioned A1 why he did not come to job, A1 told that he had killed one person, thereafter, he did not come to job.
(iv) When P.W.11-VAO was placed as in-charge at Kalakadu, on 07.07.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., A1 surrendered before VAO in her office and he has given a statement that he killed the deceased with brick along with A2. P.W.11 recorded the confession statement of A1-Ex.P7 and handed over the accused and statement along with the special report-Ex.P.8 to the respondent police. Inspector of police examined the accused. A1 gave a voluntary confession and the admissible portion of the confession of A1 is marked as Ex.P.9. Pursuant to the same, the bloodstained shirt and lungi of the accused M.Os.6 and 7 were seized by the Inspector under Ex.P.10- Seizure Mahazar. Pursuant to the disclosure made in the confession statement, the respondent police seized the three other brick pieces-MOs.9 to 11. P.W.12, Police constable handed over M.Os.8, 2 and 3 to the Investigating officer.
6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
(v) P.W.22, Inspector of Police in continuation of his investigation after effecting the seizure, recorded the statement of other witnesses in the presence of P.W.11 and forwarded the Material Objects to the Court and also sent the accused A1 to judicial custody. Thereafter, on coming to know that A2 surrendered before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, he took A2 to police custody and recorded his confession. The admissible portion of the confession of A2 is marked as Ex.P.22. Pursuant to the same, the two wheeler used by the accused was seized. Ex.P23 is the photograph of the vehicle. The Inspector of Police has also sent the material object to the Court for the purpose of forensic analysis and the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Laboratory was examined as P.W.10 and he found that the related blood items, which were sent for analysis, belong to 'O' group and issued Ex.P5-Serology report in this regard. Investigation Officer after completing the investigation handed over the case file to the regular inspector. P.W.23 took up further investigation and filed a final report, after examining the witnesses, under Sections 364 and 302 of IPC. 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
(vi) The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as 23 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.23, marked 24 documents as Ex.P1 to P24 and 11 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found both the accused guilty under Sections 364 and 302 IPC. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved all the circumstances conclusively. He further submits that in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. The alleged motive projected by the prosecution is an after thought which has not been established. So called extra-judicial confession stated to have been recorded by P.W.11 is also attached with artificiality and is highly doubtful. Similarly, the case of the prosecution that the accused had given a statement before P.W.6 is unbelievable and artificial. The conduct of P.W.6 assumes significance. P.W.6 never whispered about the 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 alleged occurrence despite the so called alleged confession of A1. Hence, it is his contention that the circumstances projected by the prosecution have not been clinchingly established and therefore, the accused are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The arrest and recovery is also doubtful and the injuries could not have been caused by the bricks, which remains unexplained by the prosecution. The learned counsel, therefore submitted that the entire prosecution case has to fall on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish all the chain links in the circumstances relied upon by them. Hence he prays to allow the appeal.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused in previous night and P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have clearly spoken about the same. P.W.6 has also spoken about the statement of A1. That apart, P.W.11 before whom A1 has appeared and given extra-judicial confession has spoken about extra-judicial confession. The evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses clinghicly established the recovery of the bloodstained cloths and the bloodstained brick pieces. The serology report also proved the fact that all the material objects seized from the accused contain the human blood of 'O' group. 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 Therefore, the prosecution has established the case beyond the reasonable doubt and hence, prays for dismissal of this appeal.
6. We have perused the entire materials. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the following circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused:
1. Motive
2. Last seen theory
3. The extra-judicial confession stated to have given by A1 before P.W.6 and P.W.11.
4. Recovery of the material objects.
As the entire prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the each and every link of circumstances relied upon by them to prove the guilt of the accused. Even any one of the links is not proved, the prosecution may not succeed in proving the guilt of the accused.
10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
7. We shall, now, deal with the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The first circumstances relied on by the prosecution is motive.
MOTIVE:
8. The motive as alleged by the prosecution is that the accused was lying near the temple in an inebriated condition and was hurling abusive and filthy language. P.W.3 and P.W.4, husband and wife, are having petty shop near the temple. At that time, the accused came there and on the instruction of P.W.3, when the accused tried to lift the deceased, the deceased appears to have scolded the accused using their caste name. However, the accused took the deceased in their motorcycle. To prove the motive, the prosecution has relied upon the evidences of P.W.3 and P.W.4 husband and wife, who have last seen the deceased with the company of the accused at 9.00 p.m. on the date of alleged occurrence. P.W.3 in her evidence stated that when the accused tried to lift the deceased, the deceased scolded the accused using their caste name. P.W.4, husband of P.W.3, in his evidence never spoke about any conversation between them on caste lines. He further stated that there was no altercation or exchange of words with regard to caste at the 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 relevant point of time. Therefore, alleged motive projected by the prosecution is highly doubtful. Therefore, merely on the basis of evidences of P,W.3 and P.W.4, the alleged motive projected by the prosecution cannot be presumed. Further it is the case of the prosecution that as the deceased belonged to Devar community, he scolded the accused while lifting. The same is also unbelievable. The evidence of P.W.9 itself clearly indicates that the accused belongs to different community. The caste angle projected by the prosecution is also highly doubtful. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is not sufficient to prove motive as projected by the prosecution.
LAST SEEN THEORY:
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence the accused came to the place where the deceased lying in front of the temple and took him on their bike. It is relevant to note that P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have been examined by the prosecution in this regard. In the entire evidence they never stated the date and day on which the accused took the deceased except stating that at about 9.00 p.m. the accused took the 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 deceased. It is not that they were not aware of the fact that a dead body was found lying in graveyard. In their cross examination, they have clearly stated that the next day itself they came to know about the death of the deceased. However, they did not go to the police. It is relevant to note that P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, has identified the dead body of the deceased on 02.07.2014 itself. Therefore, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 remaining silent about the previous day incident assumes significance. Even after the news about the death of the deceased was known to the villagers, P.W.3 to P.W.5's conduct in not informing immediately after knowing death is against normal human conduct. It is relevant to note that their evidence does not disclose the day or date when the accused took the deceased. The normal conduct of the any human being would be to narrate the incident which had happened on the previous day. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are also highly improbable and unbelievable.
10. It is also relevant to note that the dead body was found on the next day. The medical officer has given an opinion that death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy. It is relevant to note that as 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 per the evidence of P.W.1, the dead body was found only at 9.30 a.m. Therefore, to establish the last seen theory, it is relevant to prove that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is short, to rule out the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime. Whereas in this case, the time gap between the point of time when the accused last seen in the company of the deceased and when the deceased is found dead is very long. Therefore, the possibility of some other persons other than the accused being the author of the crime also cannot be ruled out. We say so with the further materials available on record. It is relevant to note that the entire prosecution proceeded under the premise that the death was due to the injuries caused using bricks.
11. The Medical Officer who has conducted autopsy has given his opinion that injuries are possible but he has not given any definite opinion in this regard. With the above evidence, when the Post-mortem certificate issued by the Medical Officer is perused, the same shows that except six injuries of laceration, injuries Nos.7, 8 9 and 10 are not only laceration but also incised wound found on the body of the deceased in the size of 9 x 1 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 cm x bone deep in upper part of right side of back of head, 4 x 1 cm x bone deep in lower part of right side of back of head, 5 x 1 cm x bone deep in left side of upper part of back of head and 5 x 1 cm x bone deep in middle of lower part of back of head. It is also relevant to note that the Medical Officer has not found any foreign particles in the body. It is common knowledge that if the bricks has been used for hitting and any body is smashed with such bricks, normally the bricks would break into some pieces and some mud particles, naturally, will be in the body of the injured. But in this case, no such foreign particles were found by the Medical Officer during the autopsy. Further, it is also relevant to note that prosecution has only seized six pieces of bricks. The bricks do not have sharp edges. Therefore, possibility of causing incised wounds with bricks is also highly doubtful and creates doubt about the entire prosecution version. The trial Court has recorded a finding to the effect that Medical Officer has not given an opinion that the injuries were caused as a result of use of bricks. Therefore, we are of the view that the last seen theory projected by the prosecution is highly doubtful. Our doubt is fortified by nature of the injuries found on the dead body. Further the time gap between the point of time when the accused was seen in the company of the deceased and when 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 the dead body found is too long. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 shows that the intention of the accused is only to leave the deceased near the bus stand and not more than that. Therefore, when there is long interval between such incident and finding of the dead body, such evidence is not sufficient to prove the last seen theory.
Extra-judicial confession:
12. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 under whom A1 was said to be working. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that one day A1 appeared and told P.W.6 that he killed one person and thereafter he did not come to the job. It is relevant to note that evidence of P.W.6 is bereft of any details. Even assuming that such statement appears to have given by the accused the conduct of the normal human being would be to inform the same to the police or at least some elders in the village. Casually ignoring the above statement makes P.W.6's evidence highly doubtful and unreliable.
As far as the extra-judicial confession said to have been given before P.W. 11, we gave our anxious consideration to the same. No doubt, though the extra-judicial confession is normally termed as a weak piece of evidence, 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 but when the extra judicial confession does not suffer from any infirmities or is not attached with any artificiality and inspires the confidence of the Court, there will be no difficulty even relying upon the extra-judicial confession de hors the other materials. However when the extra-judicial confession attached with some artificiality and stated to have been given by the person who is no way connected to the accused and the accused has not seen the said person earlier, it is not safe to base the conviction as extra- judicial confession.
13. When the evidence of P.W.11 itself shows that she was placed as in-charge VAO at the relevant point of time, she never seen the accused before the date of his alleged surrender. Therefore, the accused going to the person with whom he has no acquaintance and giving confession is also highly doubtful. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.11. Further, the so called statement-Ex.P7, when carefully seen, is neatly written on 07.07.2014 and only the signature of the accused has been obtained. It is the case of P.W.11 that on such confession she has handed over the accused to the respondent police and she has also stood as witnesses to recoveries and other material objects. It is 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 relevant to note that if such evidence, in the nature of extra judicial confession, is unearthed during investigation, what was expected from the Investigating Officer is to send such confession statement immediately to the Court to rule out any fabrication. Whereas, the so called statement- Ex.P7 and all other confession statement reached to the Court only on 08.07.2014 with one day delay. Endorsement of the judicial Magistrate clearly shows that all the statements reached the Court at the same time which create a serious doubt about the extra-judicial confession. The statement given before the VAO is also in contradiction with the seizure. In the statement given before the VAO, it is stated that the remaining three pieces of bricks were thrown away in the bushes, whereas, in the recovery statement it is stated as if the accused has concealed the above three bricks under the palmyra trees. These facts create a serious doubt about the very extra-judicial confession.
14. It is also relevant to note that, from the available records particularly Ex.P9 the discovery statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Investigating Agency came to know that the cellphone used by the deceased said to have been taken by one of the 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 accused. Having known the above particular fact which was discovered through a statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Investigating Officer has not even made an attempt to verify the nature of the call details or to find out as to what happened to the cell phone or other conversation to the deceased at the relevant point of time. The failure to conduct the investigation, particularly, with the best evidence in the name of mobile phone and call details also crates doubt about the prosecution version. The Investigating Officer has not even made any attempt in this regard. The above aspect creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the alleged extra-judicial confession is also attached with artificiality and suspicion and it is highly unsafe to rely upon the same.
RECOVERY:
15. With regard to the recovery, it is relevant to note that P.W.11 has seen the three pieces of the bricks in the place of occurrence. It is the evidence of P.W.11 that the accused had thrown the remaining three pieces in the bushes. Whereas, the Investigating Officer is said to have seized the 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 bricks from the place where the accused concealed the same. This contradiction also creates a doubt about the seizure. Though the serology report shows that all the blood items contain human blood belong to 'O' group, as already pointed out that if the brick was used, there must be a foreign particles or some other particles in the body of the deceased but the Medical Officer has not found any particles in the body of the deceased. The three brick pieces are marked as M.Os.9 to 11. All the three brick pieces measuring about 10 x 10 cm, 10 x 6 cm and 10 x 6 cm. We are of the view that the bricks breaking into the same measurement also highly improbable. It is a common knowledge that if any bricks were used for hitting, the bricks will be broken in irregular shapes. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire seizure projected by the prosecution is also highly doubtful. Therefore, merely on the basis of the serology report, we are unable to accept the prosecution theory.
16. Yet another reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution is that the dress allegedly worn by A1 were stated to have been seized at the time of his surrender on 07.07.2014. It is relevant to note that the alleged occurrence stated to have been taken place on 30.06.2014. We are of the 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 view that the person wearing the bloodstained clothes for more than seven days is highly improbable. Therefore, the alleged seizure projected by the prosecution is highly doubtful. We may also make a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. Reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it is observed as follows:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
17. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. Reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 21/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
18. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
19. Keeping in mind the above judgments on analyzing the evidence on the touch stone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence, we are of the view that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution has not fully established the guilt and is capable of two inferences. In view of the above 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution case, we hold that prosecution has not established the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. Therefore, the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court for offences under sections 364 and 302 IPC are liable to be interfered and accordingly the same are set aside and the accused are given benefit of doubt. We also find that the trial Court has framed charges for the offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC simpliciter against both the accused. It is to be noted that the entire prosecution itself is based on the circumstantial evidence and who has caused death itself is doubtful. Therefore, framing the charge for the offence under Section 302 simpliciter by the trial Court is not proper. The trial Court ought to have framed the charge under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC when there is common intention of all the accused. Therefore, whenever there is an allegation of common intention in murder trial, the trial Court has to frame charges for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC to make all the accused liable for punishment. The practise of the trial Court simply ignoring the rule of evidence and framing the charges under Sections 302 IPC simpliciter is highly deprecated and trail 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 Court particularly the learned trial Judge should careful in future to avoid such mistake.
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A1 and A2, by Judgment dated 23.08.2018, made in S.C.No.464 of 2015, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, are set aside and the appellants/A1 and A2 are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by them and the sureties shall stand terminated.
(R.S.M., J.) (N.S.K., J.)
15.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, III III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kalakad Police Station, Kalakad, Tirunelveli
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J vsm Pre-delivery Judgment in Crl.A.(MD)No.83 of 2019 15.02.2022 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis