Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 201 ipc in C.Murugesan vs State Represented By on 8 June, 2016Matching Fragments
(Common Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan.J) The appellant in Crl.A.No.424 of 2014 is A-3; the appellant in Crl.A.No.435 of 2014 is A1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.445 of 2014 is A2 in S.C.No.72 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. Totally, there were five accused in the case. A1 and A2 stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. A3 to A5 stood charged for an offence under Section 201 IPC. By judgment dated 24.07.2014, the trial Court convicted A1 & A2 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced A3 to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 201 IPC. But, acquitted A4 and A5 from the charge under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.1 to A.3 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.
4. P.W.12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P14, complaint, and after obtaining permission from the Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, on 20.05.2012, registered a case in Crime No.182 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.15 is the First Information Report. As per the instruction given by the Inspector of Police, P.W.12 commenced investigation. On 21.05.2012, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.2) and a Rough sketch(Ex.P.16). He also proceeded to the place, where the body of the deceased was cremated and prepared another Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.17) in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. He also recorded statements of some witnesses. Since, A1 and A2 were absconding, he gave a paper publication and on 24.06.2012, he altered the First Information Report by including Section 201 IPC along with 174 Cr.P.C and handed over the case to P.W.13. Ex.P.18 is the Alteration Report.
9. P.W.4 is a relative of the deceased and she is also residing in the same village. Her evidence is that on 15.03.2012, in the midnight, A1 informed the death of the deceased and ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased and the body was cremated by the villagers. P.W.5 has spoken about the illicit intimacy between A1 and A2. He is also a witness to the observation Mahazar. P.W.6, who is a House Broker, has made arrangements for a rented house to A1 and A2. P.W.7, Auto Driver, at Mandapam Camp, has stated that he dropped A1 and A2 at Hotel Tamilnadu. P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, has spoken about the recording of statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.9 has spoken about the illicit intimacy between A1 and A2. P.W.10 has spoken about the cremation of the body of the deceased by the villagers. He has also stated in his evidence that many of the villagers were present at the time of cremation. P.W.11, Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the extra judicial confession said to have been given by A1 and A2. He is also a witness to Ex.P.13 Mahazar. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the First Information Report, preparation of Observation Mahazars (Ex.Ps.2 &3) and the Rough Sketchs(Ex.Ps.16 & 17) and the alteration of F.I.R into section 201 IPC. P.W.13, has spoken about the further investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet in this case.
18. So far as conviction under Section 201 IPC is concerned, it is not the accused, alone cremated the body of the deceased. It is the consistent evidence of all the witnesses that all the villagers assembled and took the body for cremation, and P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, was also present at the time of cremation, therefore, there is no question of causing disappearance of evidence. Hence, the provision of 201 IPC is also not attracted in this case. Hence, the appellants/accused are also entitled for acquittal for the charge under Section 201 IPC. In the said circumstances, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the judgment of the court below is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.