State By: Inspector Of Police vs Perumaldoss on 5 November, 2008

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

State By: Inspector Of Police vs Perumaldoss on 5 November, 2008

Accused-1 and 3/R-1 and R-3 are husband and wife and the 2nd accused/R-2 is their son-in-law. On the allegation that the accused, due to land dispute between A-1 and the deceased and the case resulting in favour of the deceased, with an intention to finish off the deceased, on 06.10.1994 at 8.45 P.M., went to the canteen run by one Balu where the deceased was sitting and, at the instigation of A-3, A-2, armed with aruval, cut the deceased indiscriminately on the left chest and rib and A-1 on the head, resulted in his death; charge u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. was framed against A-1, 302 IPC. against A-2 and 302 read with 109 IPC. as against A-3. By order dated 15.06.2001, passed in Sessions Case No.136 of 1998, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. As against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

2. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 27, marked Exs.P.1 to P.37 and produced M.Os.1 to 21. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been let in on the side of the defence.

3. The case of the prosecution, divulged by its witnesses, is briefly narrated hereunder.

A) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. It is seen from his evidence that, during 1989, there was an agreement between the first accused and one Avudayappa Chettiar for sale of 3 acres and 80 cents of land with a condition that the sale must be completed within a period of one year. Since A- 1 could not pay the sale consideration within the stipulated period, the said Avudayappa Chettiar sold a portion of the land to the deceased and the suit filed by the first accused before the civil court, questioning such sale, ended in favour of the deceased and subsequent thereto, the first accused, who was running a tea shop near the scene place, used to say to those who come to his shop that the case ended in favour of the deceased and he should be finished off. On 06.10.1994 at about 7.00 PM, PW-1 was talking with other eye witnesses namely P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 at Naalatinpudur Road opposite to the canteen of Balu, namely, the scene of occurrence. At about 8.45 PM., the deceased along with PW- 3 came to the canteen run by Balu and shortly thereafter, all the accused arrived there. A-3 by stating that the deceased deprived them of the land, instigated the other accused to cut the deceased, whereupon, A-1, armed with Aruval, cut the deceased on the front side of the head and the second accused on the chest and left rib. Even after the deceased falling down in front of the shop, A.2 cut him indiscriminately on the back. PW-1 and the other three witnesses by shouting 'don't cut' rushed towards the scene place and the accused ran away. P.W.3 chased the accused but in vain. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, at 9.15 P.M. where he was declared dead.

B) PWs-2, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. PW-6 is the wife of the deceased, who speaks about the motive part of the prosecution case viz., enmity between the accused and the deceased on account of the land deal. PW-7 is the witness who attested the sale agreement entered into between A-1 and Avudayappa Chettiar. PW-8 is the witness who attested the sale deed executed by Avudayappa Chettiar in favour of the wife of the deceased/PW-6. PW-9 is the Village Administrative Officer who speaks about transfer of chitta and adangal in respect of the land in dispute in the name of PW-6. PWs-16 and 21/Sub Inspector and Grade-I constable speak about the complaint registered in respect of the land dispute between the accused and the deceased. PW-15, a staff of the Electricity Board, deposed to the effect that on 06.10.1994, there was power interruption between 6.45 PM and 7.22 PM. only. PWs-17, 22 and 23 have been examined with reference to ownership of the vehicle in which PW-3 and the deceased went to the canteen.

C) PW-3 is a friend of the deceased and he was working at the relevant time as Head Constable in Naalatinpudur Police Station. He has stated that on 06.10.1994, he left the Police Station by 8.30 PM. and was proceeding in his motor-cycle to take dinner, at which time, he met the deceased on the way and since the deceased wanted to accompany him to take meals, he took him and they reached Balu Tiffin Shop at 8.45 PM. At that time, the accused armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence and attacked the deceased. In so far as the overtact is concerned, PW-3 corroborated the evidence of PW-1. He has further stated that though he chased the accused, he could not get them and when he returned back, he came to know that the deceased was shifted to the hospital. PW-3, a diabetic, developed high Blood Pressure and therefore, he went to the Hospital at Kovilpatti and got himself admitted for treatment. He further stated that there was a tube light and a bulb burning inside the shop where the occurrence took place as well as the outside. He also identified the weapons of offence/M.Os.1 and 2 Aruvals as well as other material objects.

D) P.W.26, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, on examining the deceased at about 9.10 P.M. on 06.10.1994, declared him dead, prepared accident register Ex.P.30 and sent death intimation Ex.P.31 to the Police.

E) On coming to know about the occurrence, PW-18, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Hospital, found the deceased dead, recorded the statement of PW-1 between 9.30 and 10.15 P.M. under Ex.P1, verified the correctness of the contents by reading over the same to PW-1 and returned back to the Police Station where he received the death intimation and, on the basis of the statement of PW-1, registered a case in Crime No.295 of 1994 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P20 is the Printed F.I.R. PW-18 despatched the copies of Exs.P1 and P20 to the higher officials in the Department and to the court through PW-25/Grade-I Constable, who delivered the same to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, at 2.30 AM.

F) P.W.27, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 1.15 AM. In the presence of PW-10/VAO and PW-11, he prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P8 and rough sketch/Ex.P32 and recovered blood stained earth, sample earth, chappals and currency notes found at the scene of occurrence. He prepared the mahazar with the help of the light available at the scene of occurrence. At 7.00 AM, in the presence of panchayatdars, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the Hospital. Ex.P.33 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body for post mortem through PW-24, Grade-I Constable, along with his requisition.

G) P.W.20 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 11 A.M. on 7.10.1994. Ex.P26 is the post-mortem certificate wherein he noticed the following:-

" External injuries

1. A cut injury on right side forehead 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.

2. A cut injury on the left upper chest near the shoulder - 5 cm x 2 cm x cutting muscles and deep structures.

3. A cut injury medial to the left nipple extending downwards 10 cm x 3 cm x cutting soft tissues and bones and deep to the internal structures.

4. A cut injury continues to the third injury extending medially on the chest - 5 cm x 2 cm x cutting muscles and the deep structures.

5. A cut injury lateral to the left nipple 3 cm x 1 cm x extending deep to the structures.

6. A cut injury on the left upper abdomen extending from the lower costal region 10 cms length with protruding of intestines and conjoined loops of intestines present.

7. A cut injury on the right upper loin 3 cm x 1 cm x deep structure.

8. A cut injury on the right middle loin 3 cm x 1 cm x deep structure.

9. A cut injury on the middle of lower back 3 cm x deep structure.

10. A cut injury 3 cms lateral to the 9th injury 3 cm x 1 cm x deep structure.

11. A cut injury on right lower chest 4 cm x 1 cm x deep structure. All the injuries are with regular margins.

On internal examination.

Heart: Incised wound on the left auricle and ventricle 7 cm x 1 cm x opening of auricle and ventricle.

Liver: Incised would on the left side of liver 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Corresponding to external injuries, 7th and 8th injuries on exploration shows cutting the muscles and right side loops of intestines at 2 sites."

The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries to vital organs.

H) After post mortem, the Investigating Officer recovered the cloths worn by the deceased under Form-95. During investigation, he examined the wife of the deceased and the original owner of the land and recorded their statements and also recovered the documents pertaining to the land. On coming to know that A1 and A2 surrendered before court on 18.10.1994, he sought police custody and thereafter, recorded their statement. In pursuance of such statement, they produced the weapons, blood stained clothes and saree of A-3 and the same were recovered under a cover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He sent the Material Objects to the court along with his requisition and P.W.19, the Court Clerk, on receipt of those items forwarded the same for chemical analysis to the forensic laboratory with covering letter of the court. Exs.P23 and P24 are chemical analysis and serologist reports. The Investigating Officer, after examination of the witnesses and receiving forensic and medical reports, completed the investigation and filed final report.

4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence. The learned trial Judge, considering the arguments advanced on either side and the materials placed, held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and so holding, acquitted all the three accused, resulting in filing of the above Criminal Appeal by the State.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, with regard to the transaction in respect of the land, refers to the evidence of P.W.7, the attesting witness to the sale agreement for A-1; P.W.8, the attesting witness for the sale deed in favour of PW-6, wife of the deceased; and P.W.9 who deposed about the patta transfer in the name of PW-6; and submits that the motive on the part of the accused to do away with the deceased has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PWs-1 and 6 and through the official witnesses, namely, PWs-16 and 21, who speak about the complaint and counter- complaint by A-1 and the deceased.

He points out that PW-26, the Medical Officer, on examining the deceased and finding him dead, immediately sent intimation to the Police. At the Hospital, PW-18 the Inspector of Police, recorded Ex.P1 from PW-1 and, on returning to the police station, he received the death intimation, registered the F.I.R and immediately took steps to forward the same to the court; therefore, there was no delay or let up in despatching the F.I.R. Further, as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased, the ocular testimony of PW-1 is well corroborated by PW-20, the Doctor who conducted post mortem. Though the occurrence took place during night time, the witnesses could see the occurrence with the light of the electric bulb and this has been mentioned in Ex.P1 and not disputed by the defence.

He further submits that the reasons assigned by the trial court to reject the testimony of PW-3 commenting his behavior as indifferent and unusual, on the face of it, are not sound and reflective. PW-3, a diabetic, chased the accused for a considerable distance and since he developed high blood pressure, finding that the deceased has been taken to the Hospital, in order to take care of his health, proceeded to the Hospital and got himself admitted for treatment. The trial court passed unnecessary comments on his attitude and for no good reason, rejected his testimony. PW-3 is a vital witness, who gave lift to the deceased just prior to the incident and accompanied him to the canteen and he was very much present when the accused attacked him and since the accused were having deadly weapons, he could not intervene and however, when they were fleeing from the scene of occurrence, he chased them and such conduct if viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances would go to show that his evidence is quite natural, acceptable and acted upon. On the meek reasons that PW-3 was not the first person to give the complaint and he was very much interested in taking his personal care, his conduct cannot be termed to be indifferent or strange. Thus, it is clear that the trial court totally misdirected itself in dealing with the evidence of PW-3 and erroneously disbelieved the case of the prosecution.

As regards A-3, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that she might have been implicated in the case in view of the strong enmity existed between the two families.

By concluding that through the testimony of PW-1 corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-20, PW-3 and that of PW-6, through whom the motive part of the prosecution is well established, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pleads that the order of acquittal passed by the trial court particularly in respect of A-1 and A-2 may be reversed and the appeal be allowed.

6. Mr.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel points out that the name of the second son-in-law of A-1 is also the same as that of A-2 and submits that the name of A-2 is not correctly stated in Ex.P.1 and also in the evidence of PW-1. Though overt act has been attributed to A-1 and A-2, the prosecution case is designedly magnified for implicating A-3 as if she instigated the other accused and participated in the attack. The allegation of instigation is highly artificial and if really A-3 had participated in the occurrence she too would have taken a weapon and assaulted the deceased. The prosecution, only for the purpose of implicating A-3, who is the wife of A.1, ascribed instigation as an overt act against her.

As regards PW-3, it is submitted that PW-3, who claimed himself as a friend of the deceased, accompanied him to the scene of occurrence and only in his presence, the occurrence had taken place and soon after the occurrence, he is said to have chased the accused. Under such circumstance, it is quite strange to note that, on returning to the scene place, PW-3, being a Head Constable, without going to the Police Station which is situated at a distance of about 1 K.M. away from there, goes to the Hospital and gets himself admitted for treatment. According to him, it is highly impossible for PW-3, a person with diabetes and having high blood pressure at that time, to ride in a motor-cycle covering a distance of about 8 kilometer from the scene of occurrence. Moreover, in Ex.P2, the pocket diary maintained by PW-3, it has been stated that he met the deceased at 9.10 p.m. On the contrary, the fact remains that the Medical Officer PW-26 examined the deceased at 9.10 p.m. in the Hospital and declared him dead and under such circumstances, it is clear that PW-3 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all. In Ex.P2, PW-3 has noted down as if he chased A-2, who jumped into a pond and escaped, whereupon, he returned; but on the contrary in his evidence, he has simply stated that he chased PW-2 without stating the other details as mentioned in Ex.P2; hence, rightly the trial court rejected his testimony as highly artificial.

As regards the evidence of PW-1, it is stated that since the occurrence had taken place inside the tiffin shop of Balu, from the opposite side of the Road, PW-1 could not have seen the happening. Though PW-1 has narrated the occurrence consistently in Ex.P1 as well as while deposing before court, there are contradictions in the evidence itself; hence, it is not safe to rely the evidence of PW-1, who is an interested witness.

By stating that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted particularly when the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is doubtful; learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial court, only after properly assessing the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses, rightly rejected their testimonies, disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the accused and such well considered order need not be interfered with and the appeal filed by the State may be dismissed.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel appearing on either side and meticulously considered the materials available. The only point for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the order passed by the trial court is sustainable in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused.

In a case of this nature, where the order of acquittal is challenged, no doubt, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the court must cling to the view which is favourable to the accused; again, undoubtedly, such course would be adopted depending upon the quality and credibility of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses after weighing the same in judicial scales. Simultaneously, we are well aware that the appellate court/High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. However, if during such slow process, on a thorough analysis of the materials available, it is found that the findings of the lower court are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffer from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, then, there would be no impediment for this Court to set aside the order of acquittal. Further, in a case where it is ex facie apparent that admissible evidence is ignored by the trial court, a duty is cast upon the appellate court ie., High Court, to appreciate the evidence even where the accused had been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed offence or not. In that perspective, let us examine whether there exist substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the order of the trial court.

8. PWs-1 to 5 were examined as eye witnesses, of whom, PWs-2, 4 and 5 turned hostile. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased and PW-5 is a friend of the deceased and the prosecution case hinges on their testimonies. In order to discard the evidence of PW-1, the learned trial Judge assigned the reason that the occurrence seems to have taken place at the interior part of the shop of Balu, therefore, PW-1 by standing at the shop of Kannappa Doss facing south, could not have witnessed the occurrence. Though the trial Judge points out the evidence of PW-1 that he witnessed the occurrence by standing near that shop, in order to disbelieve the same, much reliance was placed on the evidence of the hostile witnesses. Strangely, the learned trial Judge proceeds to conclude that even if PW-1 stood near the shop of Balu ie., occurrence place, he could not have directly witnessed the incident. On a perusal of Ex.P8 observation mahazar and Ex.P32, it could be seen that the occurrence shop is a small canteen, covered on three sides with asbestos sheets and after the occurrence, blood was found both inside and outside the shop. In Ex.P32, it is shown that blood was slugging near the Tar Road ie., at the eastern side covering a space of about 2 . ft. It is stated in the observation mahazar that a tube light and bulb were burning inside the shop and at the entrance also, there was a tube light burning, facing the road. Thus, it is very much apparent that the learned trial Judge, with the aid of his own imagination, concluded as if the occurrence place is a big shop enclosed with walls and at the interior part thereof, the occurrence had occurred and that there was no possibility for any one, in particular PW-1, who was standing nearby, to witness the occurrence. As could be seen from the rough sketch, blood was found at the Tar Road and it is stated in the observation mahazar that at the Tar Road ie., at the exterior portion of the shop, blood was found covering a space of 2 . ft. We again point out that, strangely, at the end of paragraph No.20 of the order, the learned trial Judge concludes that even if PW-2 stood near the occurrence shop, he could not have witnessed the incident. From the materials available, it is quite clear that the occurrence took place at the front portion of the shop abutting the tar road; hence, PW-1 could have very well witnessed the incident. Thus, we can infer that obsessed by surmises and conjectures, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the testimony of PW-1.

To discard the evidence of PW-1, learned trial Judge at paragraph No.23, states that, considering the multiple injuries, 11 in number, it is hard to believe the evidence of PW-1, for, he did not mention in his evidence that A2 Muthupandi cut the deceased 'indiscriminately'. It is very unfortunate to note that the learned trial Judge did not even take pains to go through the evidence of PW-1 properly, because, PW-1 categorically states that "Kj;Jghz;o mjd;gpd; rukhhpahf KJfpy; mUthshy; btl;o tpl;lhh;" In Ex.P1 also, the said aspect has been clearly stated. Influenced by wrong noting, the learned trial judge proceeds to conclude, in such circumstances, the medical evidence of the Doctor that the deceased sustained 11 injuries does not corroborate the evidence of PW-

9. As regards PW-3, one of the reasons assigned to disbelieve his evidence is that the accused seem to be feeble and thin by physical appearance and PW-3, who is having a robust physical structure, could not apprehend them while chasing, at least the third accused, who is a lady. The learned trial Judge very strangely presumes that fearing that he might also be taken as an accused in the case and therefore, in order to have a plea of alibi in his favour, PW-3 would have gone to the hospital and got himself admitted.

It is seen that the occurrence took place at 8.45 PM. on 06.10.1994 and the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital and he was declared dead by the Medical Officer. Complaint from P.W.1 was recorded between 9.30 and 10.15 PM., and after receipt of the Death Intimation, the Sub Inspector registered the case at 12.00 midnight and copy of the FIR reached the learned Judicial Magistrate at 2.30 AM, thus, there was no delay at all in sending the FIR to the court and no possibility for embellishment or fabrication of the prosecution case even at the inception. We could see that the narration in Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW-1 before court are consistent and even basing the evidence of PW- 1 alone, conviction can be ordered against the accused. It was PW-1, who took the deceased to the Hospital and from him MOs-3 to 6, the dress worn by himself and the deceased were recovered. P.W.2 also accompanied P.W.1 and his dhoti M.O.7 was also stained with blood. The chemical examination revealed that those items were found to contain blood group as that of the deceased. Added to that, though PW-1 has clearly stated that the deceased was attacked 'indiscriminately' by A-2, the learned Judge did not notice the same and erroneously concluded thereby, that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony of PW-1. Had the learned trial Judge been more vigilant in reading between the lines, he would not have arrived at such conclusion. It is settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, whose evidence is wholly reliable. On our careful analysis, we find that the medical evidence viz., the testimony of PW-26/post mortem Doctor, well corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-1. The comment made by the trial court to doubt the testimony of PW-1 viz., in Ex.P1, PW-1 did not specifically name MOs-1 and 2 as Thuppaki Aruval and Kozhi Aruval but only mentioned the same as 'aruval', does not seem to be deliberative. Similarly, in the light of the reliable evidence of PW-1 and other circumstances and materials available, we are unable to appreciate the finding of the trial court as regards the identity of A-2.

Further, merely because PW-3 acted indifferently viz., being a policeman, immediately after his failure to catch the accused, instead of rushing to the police station to lodge a complaint, he went in the Motorcycle riding for about 8 kms. to get treatment for increase in diabetes level and blood pressure; can it be said that his evidence is wholly unreliable. There may be minor contradictions in mentioning the timing and events but apparently those aspects do not in any way affect the basic structure of the prosecution case. Attributing PW-3 that he acted indifferently with an intention to have a plea of alibi in reserve, anticipating implication as an accused, speaks a lot about the approach of the trial court in drawing inference over inference to hold against the prosecution case which is based on the acceptable evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. When the evidence of PW-3 is looked on having regard to the testimony of PW-1 corroborated by medical evidence, we find no difficulty in accepting the same as reliable. It is needless to mention that the motive part of the prosecution case has been well established through the evidence of PW-6 and the official witnesses.

10. Rightly, the trial court cited that Balu, who is owner of the shop where the occurrence had taken place, was not cited as a witness. At the same time, it has also taken note of the fact that the prosecution had filed a Memo to the effect that the said Balu had gone abroad and therefore, he could not be cited as a witness during trial. Though the trial court did not satisfy with the explanation offered by the prosecution in that regard, since it had discarded the testimonies of the star witnesses of the prosecution viz., PWs-1 and 3, the result was acquittal of the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.

11. We have taken note of the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that A-3 might have been implicated in view of the strong enmity between the two families. At any rate, though the presence of A.3 is not disputed, we are not convinced with the overt-act attributed against A-3, who is the wife of the first accused. But as regards A-1 and A-2, it was not necessary that they were to be instigated. There is no doubt at all that this is a pre- meditated and pre-planned murder as a result of strong enmity and continued quarrel and litigation between the accused and the deceased.

12. On a careful perusal of the order of the court below, we could see that certain minor contradictions have been blown up by the learned trial Judge and thereby, an erroneous conclusion has been arrived at, rejecting the prosecution case as a whole. We point out again that there was no delay in the FIR reaching the court after recording Ex.P1 statement from PW-1; there is no material contradiction between Ex.P1 and the deposition of PW-1; the medical evidence clinchingly corroborates the evidence of PW-1; except for some venial aspects, the evidence of PW-1 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW-3; thus, after a diligent assessment, we do not find any difficulty in reversing the order of the trial court and holding against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, we convict A-1 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. and A-2 under Section 302 IPC. and sentence them to undergo imprisonment for life. In so far as A-3 is concerned, in view of the reasons adverted to above, the order of the trial court is confirmed.

13. Net result, Appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of the trial court is reversed, holding that A-1 is guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. and A-2 under Section 302 IPC. and each of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the order of acquittal passed by the trial court as regards A3 is confirmed. It has been reported by both sides that A-1 died on 10.08.2008 pending Appeal. In view of the same, the appeal against A.1 abates.

Since we are reversing the finding of the trial court and convicting the second accused/R2 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, we invited the opinion of the learned Senior Counsel as regards questioning A-2 in respect of the sentence. The Senior Counsel fairly submitted that such questioning may not be necessary in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case law reported in 2001 SUPREME COURT CASES (Cri) 915 (RAMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJ NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM) at para No.33 thereof. The proposition laid down therein is that the sentence that could be awarded for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code being either imprisonment for life or sentence of death and though there is a requirement under Section 252 sub-clause 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a Judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence; when it has been decided to award a lesser sentence ie., imprisonment for life, hearing of the accused on the question of sentence may not be necessary. Therefore, for the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, A-2 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Since it is reported that A-2 is on bail, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure and commit him to Prison so as to undergo the remaining portion of sentence.

JI.

To The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court