Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 26.02.2008 in Crl. Appeal No.508 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein the conviction of the present appellant was upheld and his appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief reference to the facts as per the prosecution are necessary for the disposal of this case. The appellant was arrested by PW-1 Sub-Inspector of Police on 09.09.2005 at about 7:30 p.m. for offences punishable under Sections 51 r/w 63, 52 A r/w 68-A and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. He was then brought to the Office of the Video Piracy Cell at 11:30 p.m. and was kept in custody in the same room as that of the Head Constable Kaliappan (deceased). On 10.09.2005, the appellant made an attempt to escape from the custody by attacking the deceased on his head with an iron stool causing his death. However, he was caught by PW-1 (the Sub-Inspector of Police) and PW-2 (the Head Constable) while attempting to escape.

8. It is not in dispute that the appellant/accused was arrested by the then Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-1), Video Piracy Cell, at 7.30 p.m. on 09.09.2005 and at that time the deceased was with him. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that at the relevant point of time, the deceased did not have any residence. Therefore, he requested PW-1 to permit him to stay in the office (Video Piracy Cell) along with the accused where the accused was brought. PW-6 has stated that till 2.00 a.m. on 10.09.2005, PW-1 was in the office and later on left the office leaving the deceased constable and the accused inside the office by locking the door from outside as per the request of the deceased. This version of PW-1 has not been challenged in the cross-examination.

12. Perusal of the evidence in its entirety clearly shows that the offence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. by which time PW-1 had already left the place of occurrence and at the relevant point of time the accused and the deceased were alone inside the premises of the office of the Video Piracy Cell. Under the above circumstance, it was for the accused to explain under what circumstances the deceased was dead. In our view, the accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation in this regard. We are of the view that the chain of circumstances has been completely proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.