Madras High Court
P.Ananth vs State Represented By on 9 November, 2016
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Date of Pronouncing the
Judgment Judgment
14.10.2019 17.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6997 of 2019
P.Ananth : Appellant
Vs.
State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Cheranmahadevi Sub Division,
Munneerpallam Police Station
Tirunelveli District
Crime No.52/2009 : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.11.2016 in S.C.No.
76 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge
(PCR) Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.A.R.Jeyarudhran
for Mr.M.Jegadeesa Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli in S.C.No. 76/2013 dated 09.11.2016, convicting and sentencing the appellant/A-1 in the following manner:
S. Provisions Sentence of Fine amount Acquittal No. under which imprisonment convicted 1 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/- in default -
to undergo one year simple imprisonment 2 324 IPC (2 Three years Rs.1,000/- in default -
counts) rigorous to undergo three
imprisonment months simple
imprisonment
3 452 IPC Six months Rs.500/- in default to -
rigorous undergo one month
imprisonment simple imprisonment
4 294(b) IPC - - Acquittal
5 3(2)(v) of - - Acquittal
SC/ST (PoA)
Act (3 counts)
Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution: 2/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
2. During December 2008, A-2 Arivalagan was attacked by the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) and a case was registered against P.W.-23, deceased and others. This resulted in a strong enmity between A-2 Arivalagan and the family of the deceased.
3. On 10.02.2009 one Ananthi, who is the sister of the appellant, is said to have been teased by the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) and three others and a complaint was also given before the Palam (Bridge) Police Station and the same was enquired and closed as settled. This resulted in an enmity between the family of the deceased and A-1.
4. The deceased Ilango has given a complaint against A-4 Kalaiselvan and his father on 04.04.2008 before the Munneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli and the same was registered in Crime No. 96/2008 for offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. Therefore, there was a previous enmity between the deceased and A-4.
5. On 12.02.2009, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased Ilango and his cousin brother (P.W.-1) attended a funeral of one Anthonyammal at 3/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Kongathanparai Village and while returning from the burial ground, the appellant along with A-2 to A-4 is said to have attacked the deceased and the appellant was armed with aruval and A2 to A-4 were armed with sticks. The deceased was asked about the whereabouts of his son (P.W.-23) and the deceased is said to have told them that the matter has already been settled between the parties. Immediately, on the instigation of A-2, A-1 is said to have caused indiscriminate cut injuries with aruval on the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries on his neck, head, hand and right cheek.
6. In continuation to the above attack, the same accused persons went to the house of the deceased and attacked P.W.-2, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.-3, who is the sister of P.W.-2 and caused them grievous injuries.
Complaint and the materials collected in the course of investigation:
7. The deceased, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were taken in an Auto-
rickshaw by P.W.-1 along with P.W.-10 and P.W.-5 to the Tirunelveli 4/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli and were admitted at about 6.50 p.m. P.W.-28, who was the Doctor available on duty, treated all these three persons and issued wound certificates (Exs.P-29, 30 and 31). The deceased Ilango died at about 8.15 p.m. on 12.02.2009 and based on the information received from the Outpost Police Station in the hospital, at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.-26, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.-1 and reduced it into the complaint (Ex.P-8). This complaint was attested by P.W.-1 and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.52/2009 (Ex.P-28) on 13.02.2009 at about 00.30 hrs. for offence under Sections 294(b), 109, 452, 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC.
8. The investigation was handed over to the Inspector of Police (P.W.-29) and he visited the scene of crime at about 7.00 a.m. and prepared the observation mahazar in the presence of witness (P.W.-7) and the rough sketch (Ex.P-33). He also collected the material objects at the scene of crime (M.O.-8 to M.O.-11). He proceeded to the place, where P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were attacked and recovered material objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13). He thereafter proceeded to the hospital and 5/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased between 11 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars. He prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-34) and thereafter sent the deadbody through the Head Constable with a requisition for postmortem. The bloodstained clothes were recovered from the body of the deceased (M.O.-18 and M.O.-19). The postmortem was conducted by P.W.-18 and the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P-18) was collected. In the meantime, the express FIR reached the concerned Court on 13.02.2009 at 3.30 a.m. through P.W.-27. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses were recorded and all the seized material objects were produced before the Court in Form – 95 with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis.
9. The investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.-30), who continued with the investigation and recorded the statements of the other witnesses and also collected the relevant records in order to ascertain the community of the deceased, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. He, thereafter, handed over the investigation to P.W.-31, who laid the final report before the Judicial 6/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Magistrate, No.V, Tirunelveli, on 05.04.2012 and the same was taken on file.
10. The final report was filed as against four accused persons. The case was thereafter committed to the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the trial Court framed the following charges against the accused persons:
S. Rank of Offences for which charges were framed No. the accused 1 A-1 302, 294(b), 307 (2 counts), 452 IPC and Section 3(2)
(v) (2 counts) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (3 counts) 2 A-2 294(b), 302 r/w 114, 307 r/w 34 (2 counts), 452 IPC 3 A-3 302 r/w 34, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 (2 counts) & 342 IPC 4 A-4 302 r/w 34, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 (2 counts) and 342 IPC
11. The prosecution examined P.W.-1 to P.W.-31 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-43 and M.O.-1 to M.O.-19 and the defence marked Ex.D-1.
12. The trial Court questioned A-1 to A-4 under Section 313(1) 7/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
(b) of Cr.P.C. by putting all the incriminating materials collected in the course of the trial and the accused persons denied the same as false.
13. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant in the manner stated supra. The trial Court convicted A-2 to A-4 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC (two counts) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. A-2 to A-4 were further convicted for offence under Section 342 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
14. It was brought to the notice of this Court that A-2 to A-4 filed an appeal before this Court in Cr.A.(MD) Nos.466/2016 and 469/2016 and this Court dismissed the appeals, by judgment dated 07.07.2017 and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
8/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Submissions:
15. Mr.A.R.Jeyaruthran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made the following submissions:
● The prosecution had examined P.W.-1, P.W-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 as eyewitnesses to this case and except P.W.-4, none of the other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. ● The prosecution has concealed the genesis of the case. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-28) and the wound certificates marked as Ex.P-29 to Ex.P-31 clearly show that one Siva (son of P.W.-3) had accompanied the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital and he was not examined as a witness in this case. The Auto-rickshaw, in which, the deceased and the injured were carried was not produced as a material object and the Auto Driver was not examined by the prosecution. Even though P.W.-4 states in his evidence that there were 200 to 300 persons, who attended the funeral of Anthonyammal, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 9/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Therefore, the manner, in which the entire case has been projected by the prosecution becomes highly doubtful and no reasons have been given for not examining the witnesses, which are very vital to prove the genesis of the case of the prosecution. ● P.W.-4, who is the only eyewitness, who supported the case of the prosecution, does not talk about the presence of A-2 to A-4 in the scene of occurrence and there was a strong enmity between him and the family of the appellant and therefore, his evidence cannot be acted upon.
● The deceased is said to have been taken from the scene of crime by P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 and this is spoken by P.W.-3. However, P.W.-4 does not support the evidence of P.W.-3 and if at all the deceased was carried by P.W.-1 and P.W.-4, their clothes will also be bloodstained and it was not recovered by the Investigating Officer.
● There is complete contradiction with regard to the injuries found 10/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 in the wound certificate pertaining to the deceased (Ex.P-31) and the injuries as found in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P-18). As against seven injuries found in the wound certificate, 16 injuries are found in the postmortem certificate.
● The recovery of the aruval (M.O.-4) was not proved by the prosecution and P.W.-13, who was the witness for the recovery, turned hostile.
● The reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting A-2 to A-4 for the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC will equally apply to the appellant also and the Court below ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
15. Per contra, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, made the following submissions:
● There are three motives that have been attributed in this case 11/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 and all the motives have been sufficiently spoken by the witnesses and the relevant documents were also marked before the trial Court and the same clinches the case of the prosecution insofar as the motive behind the crime is concerned. ● P.W.-4 has clearly spoken about the overt-act committed by the appellant. Even though P.W.-6 was treated as hostile, some portions in his evidence also corroborate the evidence of P.W.-4 and a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.-6 clearly proves the offence committed by the appellant. ● P.W.-26, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about and explained the reason why the FIR was registered only at 00.30 hrs., even though the incident took place at 5.30 p.m., on 12.02.2009 and the evidence of P.W.-1 can be taken into account atleast to the extent of the complaint given to P.W.-26 and the consequent FIR that was registered. That apart there was no delay in the FIR reaching the Court or the investigation taken up by P.W.-29. 12/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 ● A-1 surrendered before the concerned Magistrate Court and he was taken on police custody and the aruval (M.O.-4) was recovered based on his confession in the presence of P.W.-20. ● A-2 to A-4 were arrested and based on their confession, the sticks used by them for committing the offence (M.O.-14 to M.O.-16) was recovered in the presence of witnesses. ● The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who are the injured witnesses, clearly speaks about the specific overt-acts committed by the accused persons and taking into consideration the previous enmity between the parties, the same cannot be doubted and the Court below was right in convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 324 IPC;
● The contradictions that were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and the deficiencies that were pointed out in the investigation cannot completely erase/discredit the case of the prosecution and there is absolutely no ground to interfere 13/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Discussions:
16. The prosecution has relied upon three incidents in order to substantiate the motive behind the incident.
16.1. The first incident was the FIR registered against the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) based on the complaint given by A-2. This FIR was registered in Crime No.380/2008 on 07.12.2008. P.W.-14, who was the concerned police, who registered the FIR and P.W.-15, who recorded the statement of A-2 from the hospital, have spoken about this incident and the action taken against P.W.-23.
16.2. The second incident was the complaint given by the deceased on 04.04.2008 (Ex.P-19), based on which, the FIR was registered in Crime No.96/2008 (Ex.P-19) against A-4 and the father of A-4. The judgment that was finally delivered in this case was marked as Ex.D-1 on the side of the defence. P.W.-19 and P.W.-21 14/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 have spoken about this case.
16.3. The third incident was the one, which took place one day prior to the present incident, wherein, Anandhi, the sister of A-1, had given a complaint to the Palam Police Station against the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) on the ground that he along with others teased her near the Bus Stand. This complaint was enquired and it was closed as settled between the parties. P.W.-17 and P.W.-22 have spoken about this complaint.
17. It is clear from the above that there was a deep enmity between the parties and the same has been substantially proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the motive attributed by the prosecution can be held to be proved in this case.
18. The prosecution has examined P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 as eyewitnesses in this case. P.W.-1 is the cousin of the deceased. He has specifically stated in his evidence that he was informed about the attack made on the deceased by others and 15/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 thereafter he saw the deceased in the scene of crime. He had helped the deceased to be admitted in the hospital and P.W.-1 has also admitted the signature found in the complaint. This witness was treated as hostile, since he did not support the case of the prosecution as an eyewitness. The evidence of this witness can be taken for the purpose of the complaint given after the incident and the deceased being taken to the hospital.
19. P.W.-5, who was examined by the prosecution as eyewitness, did not support the case of the prosecution and he has stated that he was not in the station at the time of the incident. Therefore, nothing turns out from the evidence of P.W.-5.
20. P.W.-6, even though was treated as a hostile witness, has stated about the attack made by the appellant against the deceased with aruval. He, however, makes a statement to the effect that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer and he went to his native place to take treatment for Asthma.
16/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
21. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W.-4 in this case. P.W.-4 has stated in his evidence that he had gone to attend the funeral of Anthonyammal at Kongathanparai Village on 12.02.2009 and at about 4.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m., the appellant had attacked the deceased with aruval and the deceased fell down and thereafter, he was again attacked in his neck, mouth and chest. He took the deceased in the Autorickshaw to the hospital. A close reading of the evidence of P.W.-4 shows that there was a prior enmity between P.W.-4 and the appellant and he goes to the extent of saying that there was a prior complaint given against him and others for having attacked the father of A-1 and that it was a false case and therefore, they were not in talking terms.
22. It must be seen as to whether the evidence of P.W.-4 can be acted upon for the purpose of sustaining the conviction and sentence against the appellant. This witness has not stated anything about the presence of A-2 to A-4 in the scene of occurrence. Even though this witness speaks about the deceased being taken to the hospital in an Auto, the wound certificate (Ex.P-31) and the evidence of P.W.-28 17/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 shows that it was one Siva, who had brought the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital. P.W.-4 does not speak about Siva (son of P.W.-3) anywhere in his evidence. The Auto, in which, the deceased and the injured persons were taken has not been brought as a material object and the Auto Driver has not been examined as a witness. Similarly, Siva has also not been examined as a witness. If P.W.-4 had carried the deceased as spoken to by P.W.-3, the bloodstain of the deceased will be present in the clothes worn by P.W.-4. These clothes have not been recovered and sent for chemical examination. Atleast that could have ensured the presence of P.W.-4 in the scene of ocurrence.
23. In view of all the above material contradictions and missing links that are found in this case, the presence of P.W-4 in the scene of occurrence becomes highly doubtful. The fact that P.W.-4 does not state anything about the presence of A-2 to A-4 makes his evidence even more doubtful. This must be seen from the background fact that there was a previous enmity between P.W.-4 and the appellant which makes it even more unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.-4. 18/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
24. P.W.-28, who was the Doctor, who had examined the deceased, had given the wound certificate (Ex.P-31). The injuries as found in the Wound Certificate is extracted hereunder:
“1.Laceration over right lower jaw 15 x 4 x 1 cm.
2.Laceration over right side of neck.
3.Laceration over posterior aspect of right hand on 7 x 4 cm.
4.Laceration over left arm 5 x 5 x 3 cm.
5.Laceration right chin.
6.Laceration on right side of back.
7.Laceration on posterior aspect of right shoulder 5 x 2 x 1 cm.”
25. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.-28 and the injuries found in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.-18) is extracted hereunder:
“The following antemortem injuries were noted:
1.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 16 x 2 x 5 cm over right cheek, it extens from angle of mouth to right ear, it cuts the underlying muscles and right side of mandible.
2.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 5 x 1 x 2 cm over right side of chin, it lies 2 cms below injury no.1. It cuts the underlying muscles.
19/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
3.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 1 x 5 cm over right side of upper part of neck. It cuts the underlying arteries, veins and nerves.
4.A vertical gapping stab injury of size 4 x 1 x 3 cm over left side of neck, it pierces the underlying muscles, arteries, veins and nerves. Its margins are sharp and edges clean cut.
5.An oblique curved gapping heavy cutting injury of size 17 x 4 x 2 cm over top of right shoulduts the underlying muscles.
6.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 6 x 1 x 2 cm lies 1 cm medial to injury no.5. It cuts the underlying muscles.
7.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 6 x 1 x 2 cm over top of right shoulder lies 1 cm outer to injury no.5. It cuts the underlying muscles and head of right humerous bone, its having a tailing of 7 cm in right upper arm.
8.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 17 x 2 x 2 cm over back of right upper arm, it cuts the underlying muscles.
9.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 16 x 2 x 2 cm lies 1 cm behind injury No.8, it cuts the underlying muscles.
10.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 8 x 2 cm x cavity deep over right side of back, it lies 8 cm 20/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 below injury No.7.
On dissection it cuts the underlying scapula, right ribs 5 & 6 with surrounding contusion and enters into right pleural cacity and makes a heavy cutting injury of size 6 x 1 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of right lung.
11.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size (2 x 2 x 2 cm over back of right upper arm, it cuts the underlying muscles.
12.An oblique gapping stab injury of size 4 x 2 x 4 cm over medial aspect of lower part of right upper arm. Its edges are sharp and margins clean cut.
13.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 2 cm x bone deep over outer aspect of middle of left forearm. It cuts the underlying forearm bones with surrounding contusion.
14.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 5 x 1 x 1 cm over left 1st web space. It cuts the underlying tendons.
15.A linear incised injury of length 5 cm near right axilla.
16.A linear incised injury of length 21 cm seen over right side of chest.
...
Opinion as to the cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries, injury Nos.3,4 & 10 are 21/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 fatal in nature.”
26. As against seven injuries found in the Wound Certificate, 16 injuries are found in the postmortem certificate. The postmortem Doctor has opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries and injury numbers 3, 4 and 10 are vital in nature. Injury No.4 found in the postmortem report is not even finding a place in the Wound Certificate given by P.W.-28. Therefore, taking into consideration the background facts of this case and the questionable evidence of the so called eyewitness P.W.-4, discrepancies pointed out in the injuries found in the body of the deceased assume greater significance.
27. The incident has taken place at 5.30 p.m., on 12.02.2009.
The deceased was admitted in the hospital at about 6.50 p.m., and he died at about 8.15 p.m. The deceased was alive for nearly 2½ hours after the incident. The Wound Certificate and the evidence of P.W.-28 reveals the fact that the deceased was conscious. There is no indication in the Wound Certificate regarding the seriousness of the injury sustained by the deceased. That apart, the entire Wound 22/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Certificate talks about 7 laceration injuries, whereas, the postmortem certificate talks about gapping cut injuries. P.W.-28, in her evidence, states that the injuries have not been indicated as cut injury or incised wound. If the deceased was conscious and if the Doctor had felt that the injury was serious, the statement of the deceased could have been recorded, since he was conscious. Even after the death of the deceased, this statement could have been used as a Dying Declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. This would have greatly helped the prosecution to come out with the true version about the entire incident. For reasons best known, unfortunately, this procedure has not been adopted in this case.
28. P.W.-4, in his evidence, has specifically stated that there were 200 to 300 persons, who attended the funeral of Anthonyammal. Not a single independant witness has been examined by the prosecution in this case. If such a grave incident had taken place in the presence of such a large crowd, it is very unnatural that the group would not have reacted to the situation. This also throws a lot of doubt on the genesis of the case projected by the prosecution. 23/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017
29. The non examination of Siva (son of P.W.-3), who had admitted the deceased and the injured in the hospital, continues to be a mystery. The non-examination makes this Court to take an adverse inference on the case of the prosecution, since it must be taken to have been intentionally done to conceal the genesis of the case. If this witness had been examined, he would have spoken about the incident, the persons involved in the incident, the witnesses, who were available in the scene of crime and also the manner, in which, the deceased and the injured were taken to the hospital. In the absence of his evidence, this Court is not convinced with the manner in which the prosecution is attempting to project the genesis of the case.
30. The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who are the injured witnesses, is cogent and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of these two witnesses cannot help the prosecution in any way in order to sustain the conviction against the appellant for the offence of murder. At the best, the evidence of these two witnesses can help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence only insofar as the overt-acts attributed against the appellant 24/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 in causing the injuries to P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. The benefit of doubt that was extended to A-2 to A-4 by the trial Court by not convicting them for the charge under Section 302 read with 114 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC should have been extended to the appellant also. If the presence of A-2 to A-4 in the scene of crime is doubted, then, the very basis of the case of the prosecution for the offence of murder gets completely shattered.
Conclusion:
31. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the appellant has to be necessarily acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC.
32. Insofar as the offence under Sections 324 (2 counts), and 452 IPC, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubts and the conviction and sentence, inosfar as these offences are concerned, is hereby sustained. The judgment of the trial Court made 25/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 in S.C.No.76/2013 dated 09.11.2016 is accordingly, modified.
33. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
17.10.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The II Additional District & Sessions Judge (PCR) Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Cheranmahadevi Sub Division, Munneerpallam Police Station Tirunelveli District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 26/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J RR Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6997 of 2019 17.10.2019 27/27 http://www.judis.nic.in