Madras High Court
State Represented By vs Shahul Hameed on 19 November, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 24.02.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A(MD)No.194 of 2014
State represented by:
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
(Rameswaram Town P.S
Crime No.76/2002). ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Shahul Hameed
2.Saveriyar Pitchai
3.Christi @ Christhuraj,
4.Miltos
5.Ramar
6.Senthooran
7.Balasubramanian
8.Balasingh
9.Kannan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 377 of Cr.P.C., praying to
allow the appeal, to set aside the order and to enhance the punishment
imposed on the respondents / accused (A-1 to A-9) in S.C.No.75 of 2007,
dated 12.03.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court / Assistant
Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasundaram
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/24
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State seeking enhancement
of punishment imposed on the respondents in S.C.No.75 of 2007, dated
12.03.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court / Assistant Sessions
Court, Ramanathapuram.
2. The respondents herein along with another were charged for the
offence under Section 10 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 120(b) of IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908. The prosecution examined its witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.72 and
marked Exs.P1 to P59 and M.O.1 to M.O.13. On the defence side, no
witness was examined and no document was marked. During the
proceedings under 313 Cr.P.C, on 10.03.2014, A1 to A9 filed an written
submission admitting their guilty.
3. The Trial Court, on considering the admission petition found that
the respondents A1 to A9 were guilty and sentenced them as follows:
(i) For the offence under Section 10 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention), Act, 1967, sentenced A1 to A9, to undergo imprisonment for
one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo one
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/24
week Simple Imprisonment.
(ii) For the offence under Section 120(b) of IPC sentenced them to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
(iii) For the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act,
1908, sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and
all the sentence to be run concurrently.
4. The gist of the case is that on 08.04.2002, A11 who is an
absconding accused met A5/Ramar and A7/Balasubramanian at Madurai
Sessions Court hatched a conspiracy to illegally transport explosive
articles from Rameswaram to Eranatheevu, Srilanka to the banned outfit
organisation LTTE. In furtherance to the conspiracy, on 12.04.2002,
A8/Balasingh the owner of the Maruthi Van, A9/Kannan, who is the
driver of the Maruthi Van came to Rameswaram Seashore in the Maruthi
Van bearing Registration No.TN-09-7218 along with the parcels to be
illegally transported to LTTE and handed over the articles to A5 and
thereafter, A6 unloaded the articles from the van and concealed the same
near the Murugan Temple. On 13.04.2002, at about 10.00 a.m, A3 to A6
loaded the articles in the boat RMS.No.3287, which belongs to A2. On
13.04.2002 at early hours, A1, A3, A4 and A6 proceeded in the boat along
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/24
with a parcel smuggled, to be handed over to the LTTE. As the boat
proceeded near Sangumal beach, the Indian Navy found a boat moving
suspiciously in a wrong direction and while they asked to stop the boat,
the accused failed to stop the boat and thereafter, it was chased and
intercepted and the boat got stuck in the rock. At that time, A3, A4 and A6
jumped in to the sea and escaped. A1 alone was caught by the Navy. The
Navy Personnel found 1376 Audio Cassette, 1376 Photos of LTTE leader
Prabhakaran, 1500 meters of Explosive wire in the boat and seized the
articles along with the boat. Later, the Navy handed over the accused
along with articles to the Rameswaram Police, who registered the case in
Crime No.76 of 2002 for the offence under Section 120(b) of IPC, Section
10 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Thereafter, the investigation was handed
over to the 'Q' Branch Police, CID, Ramanathapuram and during the
investigation, the conspiracy and involvement of the accused came to
light.
5. During the investigation it was found that on 08.04.2002, A11
had approached A5 and A7 at Madurai Sessions Court and engaged them
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/24
to transport the illegal articles to LTTE from Rameswaram to
Eranatheevu, Srilanka and promised to pay Rs.30,000/- for the same, out
of which Rs.10,000/- was given as advance to A5. On 12.04.2002, A11,
Kumaran, A8/Balasingh, who is the owner of the Maruthi Van and
A9/Driver of the Maruthi Van had loaded the parcel and handed over the
same to A5 on the Seashore of Rameswaram. A6 unloaded the articles
from the van. On 13.04.2002, during the early hours A1, A3, A4 and A6
proceeded towards Srilanka with the articles of LTTE in a fishing boat of
A2. At that time, the Indian Navy intercepted the boat and all the four
accused jumped into the sea and A1 was caught by the Navy and other
three persons escaped. Thereafter, A5, A2, A8, A7 and A6 were arrested
on 24.04.2002, 02.05.2002, 04.05.2002, 12.05.2002 and 22.05.2002
respectively. On 22.05.2002, A9 surrendered before the Judicial
Magistrate No.VII, Madurai and On 02.12.2003, A10 surrendered before
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram. A11, a Srilankan had
escaped from the country and he could not be arrested. Thereafter, charges
were framed against the accused and the Trial Court on completion of trial
convicted the accused /respondents as stated above.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/24
submitted that the judgement of the Trial Court in giving lesser
punishment to the respondents/accused are contrary to law, improper and
incorrect. The Trial Court committed grave error by accepting the case
solely on the admission petition filed by the respondent and ignoring the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court had not considered the
evidence produced by the prosecution. He further submitted that the Trial
Court on the admission of the respondent had given lenient sentence and
the sentence is inadequate for the grave nature of the offence committed
by the accused. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated the plea of the
prosecution along with the admission petition filed by the respondent, but
in this case, it had not done so. The Trial Court, without going into the
merits of the case and the material evidence available on record, failed to
consider the gravity of the offence committed by the respondents and
merely on the admission petition filed by the respondent convicted the
accused and imposed a lesser sentence.
7. He further submitted that the Trial Court had swayed away by the
sentiment plea of the accused that they were facing trial for nearly 10
years and the imprisonment undergone by them as under Trial Prisoners.
Expect the admission petition, there is no supporting material filed to
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/24
prove the same and the Trial Court could not give such leniency by
considering the admission petition alone. The Trial Court had not
considered and analysed both oral and documentary evidence produced by
the prosecution and had glossed over the same. The Trial Court on
coming to conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the
respondents and accepting the admission of the respondents, imposed
minimum sentence. Hence, the prosecution has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of punishment.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that
in this case, P.W.1 is the Havildar of Indian Navy. He state that on
13.04.2002, P.W.1 and others were an patrol duty near Sangumal sea. At
that time, a boat was proceeding in a suspicious manner and thereafter, the
boat was intercepted. Four persons were found in the boat and three
persons jumped into the sea and escaped and A1 was apprehended. In the
boat, audio cassette, explosive substances and photos of Prabhakaran,
leader of LTTE were found. The occupant in the boat A1/ Shahul Hameed,
the boat and the articles were produced by him to the Commander of the
Navy. P.W.15 was along with P.W.1. Thereafter, the commandant
lodged a complaint to the Rameswaram Police. Later, the case was
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/24
transferred to the 'Q' Branch, Ramanathapuram, who conducted the
investigation.
9. P.W.2, is the Diver attached to the Indian Navy who was
instructed by the commandant to immediately reach the scene and find
whether any articles were available in the sea. P.W.3, observation
mahazar witness. P.W.4 and P.W.5, are the witnesses to the confession of
A1. P.W.6, is the witness to the confession of A4. P.W.7, is the witness to
confession of A4. P.W.8, is the witness to the confession of A8. P.W.9, is
the witness to the confession of A9. P.W.10 and P.W.11, are the witnesses
to the confession of A3. P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the witnesses to
the confession of A7. P.W.16 and P.W.36, are the witnesses for the
happenings on 13.04.2002. P.W.17, is the jailer of the Central Prison,
Madurai. P.W.18, is the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department states
that A2 is the owner of the boat RMS No.3287. P.W.19 and P.W.22, are
the divers engaged by the 'Q' Branch to find out whether any articles were
found in the sea. P.W.20, is the confession witness for A6. P.W.21, is the
fisherman who deposed that he saw some wires floating in the sea. P.W.
22, is the diver who on a latter date retrieved yellow colour wire from the
sea. P.W.23, P.W.25 and P.W.26, are the witnesses from the Fisheries
http://www.judis.nic.in
8/24
Department, they were examined to the fact that A2 is the owner of the
boat RMS 3287, which was taken for the fishing on 13.04.2020 and
issuance of token for diesel. P.W.24, is the observation mahazar witness.
P.W.27 to P.W.32, have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.34
is the tea shop owner, who had seen the accused proceeding towards the
sea. P.W.36 and P.W.37 are the witnesses to state about the happenings on
13.04.2002. P.W.39, P.W.41 and P.W.43 has stated that they were
engaged for repair and maintenance of A5 boat, at that time they saw a
person coming in the Maruthi vehicle and speaking to A5. P.W.53 is the
owner of the Maruthi Van, who sold the vehicle to one Selvaraj father of
A8. P.W.52 is the broker who acted as middleman for the sale. P.W.55
who employed to collect toll fee in the Pamman bridge toll-gate. P.W.57
to P.W.62 and P.W.64 are the witnesses, who are the explosive dealer and
purchaser of explosive from A10. P.W.63 is the witness from the Office of
the Controller of the Explosives who spoke about the procedure. P.W.65
and P.W.66 are the forensic expert officers who examined the articles
forwarded to them. P.W.67 is the Home Secretary who gave sanction for
the unlawful activities. P.W.68 is the Commissioner, Ramanathapuram
who gave sanction to proceed against the accused under explosive
substance Act. P.W.69 to P.W.72 are the Police Officials.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9/24
10. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that
the case of the prosecution has been projected as though conspiracy was
hatched by A11, who is a Srilankan, absconding accused, along with A5
and A7 at Session Court, Madurai on 08.04.2002 for transporting articles
of LTTE to Eranatheevu. A11 promised to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for
the same and handed over Rs.10,000/- as advance to A5. To prove his
conspiracy, no material was produced. Further, it has been projected that
on 13.04.2002, in continuation of the conspiracy, A11 along with other
accused had placed the articles in the van of A8, which was driven by A9
and the same was handed over to A5 at Rameswaram. Thereafter, the
articles were loaded in the boat of A2 and A1, A3, A4 and A6 proceeded
in the boat. At that time, P.W.1 is said to have intercepted the boat and
apprehended A1 and in the boat, Audio cassette, Explosive wires, picture
of Prabhakaran were found and the same were seized by the Navy. In this
case, P.W.1 admitted that along with A1, he had seized the articles and the
boat and produced the same before his Commander Mr.Chakaravarthy.
Thereafter, the said Chakaravarthy lodged a complaint to the Rameswaram
Police Station. The said Chakaravarthy has not been examined as witness.
Though the prosecution case states that the said Chakaravarthy is not
http://www.judis.nic.in
10/24
available to substantiate the same, no materials were produced.
11. He further contended that in this case, the entire case unveiled
on the arrest of A1 and seizure of the articles. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the
witnesses for the confession and recovery from A1. P.W.4 and P.W.5
admitted that signatures which were obtained from them in the Police
Station. Added to it, the non-examination of said Chakaravarthy, the
prosecution had miserably failed even at the initial stage of the case to link
the accused with the articles seized. Hence, the very foundation of the
case is doubtful. Thereafter, A5 was arrested and except five audio
cassettes, nothing was recovered from him. Later he was taken to Police
custody and some explosive wires were recovered. This recovery is highly
doubtful. Some explosive wires were thereafter found floating in the sea
at a latter date of which some were retrieved from the sea, same months
later during May 2002. These recoveries would no way lead to inference
that the accused are the cause. The respondents herein cannot be
connected with these recoveries. Added to it, other ground is that the boat
of A2 was used for this covert operation. The contention is that A2 is the
owner of the boat which is not in dispute. The boat owner sending the
boat for fishing is a common practice followed. The persons found in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/24
boat are admittedly fishermen. Thus, letting out the boat is not an offence.
Likewise, to implicate A5, some of the witnesses, who were carrying out
maintenance work of boat of A5 were examined to show that A5 used to
meet some persons who came in Maruthi van and they were not aware
about the conversation, and could not identify the person who came in the
Maruthi Van, their evidences is of no consequence.
12. The further contention is that the one set of witnesses have been
examined to show that A10 was dealing with explosive wires and the
wires found in the boat and in the sea were supplied by A10. A10 is a
licensed explosive dealer which is not in dispute. A10 purchasing the
explosives under Form 37 and selling the same to others is a part of his
business and is not an offence. The Controller of the Explosives admitted
that such purchase and selling of explosives are to be reported to them
every month and A10 had never came under adverse notice to the
Controller of the Explosives Substance. Further, the Forensic Scientific
Officers have opined that the wires forwarded to them contained
explosives and there is nothing to show from whom and where the wire
was collected and the wire forwarded for the forensic study does not bear
any distinct mark. There is no clear link in the evidence. The investigation
http://www.judis.nic.in
12/24
in this case have proceeded on a pre-conceived motion. Thus, the reasons
given by the witnesses in the case have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
13. The Trial Court finding is that there is no direct evidence in this
case and the circumstantial evidence is in bits and pieces. Considering all
the aspects and on the submissions made by the respondents before the
Trial Court, reveals that for a period of 10 years, they were appearing
before the Court and due to which, they underwent both physical and
psychological trauma and their health conditions got detoriated. Since they
are all daily wagers and unable to continue with their avocation and
considering that the respondents were in the prison during investigation
for a period of two months and without going into merits of the case the
Trial Court have given clemency. The Trial Court on considering the
materials available and the plea of the respondents while examining them
under Section 313 Cr.P.C had convicted and sentenced them to undergo
one month imprisonment for all the three charges. As far as A10 is
concerned, he had not sought any clemency, the Trial Court found no
materials against A10 to convict him and acquitted him from the case.
Further, it is to be noted that no appeal was filed against the acquittal of
http://www.judis.nic.in
13/24
A10. Thus, on the merits of the case and on parity, the respondents/ A1 to
A9 are to be acquitted from the case and hence, the appeal filed by the
appellant is liable to be dismissed.
14. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
materials it is seen that in this case the prosecution had examined P.W.1
to P.W.72 and marked Exs.P1 to P59 and M.O.1 to M.O.13. The
witnesses can be classified as follows:
(i) Witness to the Conspiracy
(ii) Witness to the occurrence and confession
(iii) Witness to the recovery and seizure
(iv) Witness to the arrest
(v) Witness to the explosives
(vi) Witness to the forensic study
(vii) Witness for the investigation and others
(i) Witness to the Conspiracy :
14.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2012, A11
met A5 and A7 at Session Court, Madurai, hatched conspiracy to illegally
transport explosive articles from Rameswaram to Eranatheevu, Srilanka
http://www.judis.nic.in
14/24
for LTTE. There is nothing to show that the contents of the parcel box
was revealed to the other accused by A11. To prove that a conspiracy was
hatched on 08.04.2002, there is no material whatsoever. Thereafter, the
second incident was on 12.04.2002. On that day, it is stated that A8 and
A9 had come in Maruthi Van transporting the parcel box which was
unloaded by A6 and kept in a secluded place. To prove this aspect, P.W.
30, P.W.35, P.W.38 to P.W.44, P.W.46 to P.W.51 are examined. Of these
witnesses, except P.W.35, P.W.39, P.W.41 and P.W.43 all the other
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore,
they are treated hostile. The witness of the P.W.35 is in the nature of
hearsay. The evidence of P.W.39, P.W.41 and P.W.43 is of no
consequence, on the fact that A5 used to speak to the person who came in
Maruthi Van other than that they do not know what was the conversation,
who are the persons came in the Maruthi Van and no materials were
produced to connect the accused. Added to it vehicle belonging to A8 has
not been proved. P.W.53, the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration
No. TN-09-7218, sold the vehicle to one Selvaraj and he has not been
examined. P.W.53 stated that on 15.11.2000, he sold the vehicle to one
Selvaraj and he handed over all the documents. P.W.54 is the broker for
the sale and he has also stated that the Madurai van was sold to one
http://www.judis.nic.in
15/24
Selvaraj. No documents have been produced for sale of the van. Further,
none from the RTO office have been examined as witness in this case.
Thus the ownership of the vehicle has not been proved. Admittedly, in this
case, the said Selvaraj is not an accused and A8 cannot be said as the
owner of the vehicle. Likewise, A9 driver of the vehicle is also not proved.
Added to it, P.W.55 the person who was working in Pamban bridge toll-
gate had not stated anything about the Maruthi Van passing over the
bridge on the relevant date. Thus, the vital link has not been proved in this
case.
(ii) Witness to the occurrence and confession, (iii) Witness to the
recovery and seizure and (iv) Witness to the arrest:
14.2 With regard to the occurrence on 13.04.2002, the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.15 is that a boat was moving in a suspicious manner and
the same was intercepted. Four persons jumped from the boat, three
persons escaped and A1 was arrested and was produced along with the
boat, audio cassette, picture of Prabhakaran and explosives wires before
Commander Chakaravarthy attached to Indian Navy, Rameswaram. The
said Chakaravarthy lodged a complaint to the Rameswaram Police Station
and produced A1 and the articles to the Police. In this case, the said
http://www.judis.nic.in
16/24
Chakaravarthy has not been examined as witness. The prosecution has
given an explanation that the said Chakaravarthy is not available. But no
materials was produced to substantiate the same. Likewise,
Mr.Boominathan, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR was not
examined as witness in this case. Explanation given was that
Mr.Boominathan has died and no death certificate was produced. In this
case, Exs.P2 to Exs.P9 are Mahazars for seizure of audio cassettes,
Pictures and Cordtex wires, confession of A1, confession of A5 leading to
recovery and Mahazar for seizure boat bearing No. RMS 3287, To prove
that A4 and A5 are the mahazar witnesses, P.W.4 and P.W.5, officials
from the Revenue Department have not supported the case of the
prosecution. In view of the same, the very foundation of the case becomes
shaky, doubtful. The date of occurrence i.e 13.04.2020, was not proved in
the manner known to law. The subsequent confession during Police
custody and recovery of A5 are not proved with proper evidence.
14.3 The other aspect is that P.W.2/diver of the Navy admitted that
he had gone to the seen of occurrence as directed by his commandant and
he could not find any articles on that day. The subsequent recovery of
wires by the 'Q' Branch a month later is of no consequence and in no way
http://www.judis.nic.in
17/24
connected with the accused. Added to it, none of the witnesses have stated
about A1, A3, A4 and A6 were the persons travelling in the boat on
13.04.2002. The available evidence of the tea shop owner and others near
Seashore that they saw the accused near the seashore is of no relevance.
Further they admitted that they only heard the news, that the boat in
which accused travelled was carrying articles, which was chased by Navy
and caught, is in the nature of hearsay evidence. It is not in dispute that
the accused are the fisherman. Therefore, they proceeding in the sea
cannot be doubted and found fault with. Hence, for the occurrence, there
is no acceptable evidence leading to conclusion. The arrest, confession
and recovery from the other accused are also highly doubtful. The
witnesses who are from Revenue Department admitted that they signed the
documents in the Police Station at the instance of Police and they also
admited that in most of the places, the public witnesses were available, but
the respondent Police failed to call any independent person to be a
witness. Investigating Officer admitted that he had not called any
independent person available there. The witnesses are in the nature of
stock witnesses. The arrest, confession and recovery from the other
accused are also doubtful. As regards A2, it is an admitted fact that A2 is
a fisherman who was owing fishing boat. The evidence of fisheries
http://www.judis.nic.in
18/24
department to the effect that the owners of the boat giving their boat to the
fisherman and permitting to sail in the sea for fishing is a common
practice. Their evidences are noway connected to implicate A2 or any
other accused.
(v) Witness to the explosives
14.4 It is seen that in this case A10 is the licensed explosive dealer.
P.W.56 is the Manager of Vetrivel Explosive, who has not supported the
case of the prosecution and he was treated hostile. P.W.57 is the
Managing Director of Vetrivel Explosive, he has stated about the supply
of explosive substance to A10. He further stated that the wires supplied by
them are of Blue, White and red colour wires and tubes. He is very certain
that they don't manufacture yellow colour wires. P.W.58 is the Manager
of Siva Shakthi Explosives, Salem, who has stated about A10 purchasing
explosive from them and P.W.59 is the Industrial Mining Service Dealer
who has stated about selling explosives to A10. P.W.60 is the Manager of
Parvathi Explosives. All these witnesses has stated about the sale of
explosives to A10. They had admitted that A10 is a licensed dealer dealing
in explosive and only on submission of Form 37, the explosives would be
supplied by them and copy of Form 37 will be submitted to the the
http://www.judis.nic.in
19/24
Controller of Explosives. It is admitted that sale of explosive is made
under Form 37. These forms to be sent to the Controller of Explosives
P.W.63. The employees of Murugan Enterprises, P.W.62 and P.W.64 has
stated that they purchased explosives from A10. P.W.63, the Deputy
Controller of Explosives, Chennai has stated that the explosives have to be
dealt only by a licensed person through prescribed forms. P.W.65 and
P.W.66 are the Scientific Officers from Forensic Department, who found
explosives in the article forwarded to them. It is seen that none of the
dealer who supplied explosives to A10, produced any document to show
that the supply of explosives to A10 and there is no material to show that
the explosives supplied to A10 reached other accused more particularly
the explosives which were seized from the boat. P.W.63 admitted that all
sale and transaction are made through Form 36 and 37 and a copy of the
same will be submitted to them monthly and no adversity was found
against A10. In view of the same and nothing could be stated that A10
had received explosives and diverted the same and smuggled to LTTE by
the other accused. The prosecution had miserably failed to prove this vital
link.
(iv) Witness for the Investigation and Others.
http://www.judis.nic.in
20/24
14.5 Initially the case was came to be registered by Rameswaram
Police by Mr.Boominathan, Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of
complaint, seized articles and took custody of A1 from the Commander of
Navy. Both Mr.Boominathan and Mr.Chakaravarthy were not examined as
witness in this case. As stated earlier, the reason given for non-
examination of both the officers are not supported with any document and
no proper explanation was given. P.W69, the Inspector of Rameswaram
Police Station conducted investigation till 20.04.2002 and thereafter on
the direction of the Director General of Police, case was handed over to 'Q'
Branch Police. P.W.70, Inspector of Police, 'Q' Branch, assisted P.W.71,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted investigation from
20.04.2002 to 18.11.2002. P.W.72 is the subsequent Investigation Officer
who took up investigation. P.W.72 after obtaining sanction opinion filed
charge sheet in this case. The Investigating Officer admitted that no public
were present during arrest, confession and recovery. None were examined
as the witness though they were present in the place where mahazars were
prepared. It is also seen that there is no link to show that the explosives
were found in the boat were the explosives which were supplied by A10
and the same was smuggled out. On the contrary, arrest of A1, his
confession, seizures of articles and boat is not proved in this case. There is
http://www.judis.nic.in
21/24
nothing to show that the explosives was removed and handed over by A10
to other accused, and took those explosives with other articles and
attempted to smuggled out. The Trial Court has given a finding that the
case against A10 was not proved and acquitted A10 from the case.
Admittedly, the prosecution had not preferred any appeal against the
acquittal of A10. It is a case of direct and circumstantial evidence. The
major part of the case is based on the circumstantial evidence. From the
above materials, it is seen that the prosecution had miserably failed to link
each of the circumstances by cogent evidence. The link between each
circumstance leading to irresistible conclusion that the accused alone had
committed the offence is not satisfactorily proved. Taking this into
consideration and the petition filed by A1 to A9 while they were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C seeking clemency, the Trial Court had convicted
them for the above stated offence and sentenced them to one month
imprisonment. In view of the same this Court finds that there is no
perversity or illegality is found to interfere with the finding of the Trial
Court.
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the prosecution is dismissed,
confirming the judgment and sentence rendered by the Chief Judicial
http://www.judis.nic.in
22/24
Magistrate Court / Assistant Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.
75 of 2007, dated 12.03.2014.
19.11.2020
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
rst
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court / Assistant Sessions
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
23/24
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rst PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN Crl.A(MD)No.194 of 2014 19.11.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 24/24