| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 2831
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : Crl. A. (MD). No. 643 of 2023 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Parties : Murugan & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Virudhunagar |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appearing Parties: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, S. Sankar, G. Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 20-04-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) -
|
| Summary :- |
| Mistral API responded but no summary was generated. |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in S.C.No.43 of 2014 dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur and to set aside the judgment and conviction and sentence.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur, in S.C.No. 43 of 2014, dated 24.03.2023, wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:
Rank
| Offence
| Sentence
| A1
| Section 341 IPC
| One month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment.
| Section 302 IPC
| Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
| A2
| Section 342 IPC
| Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
| Section 302 IPC
| Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
|
The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, who was the son of PW1, and the accused persons are known to each other. During the year 2012, one Muthupandi, who is the younger brother of A1, the deceased, and one Maharaja went to a Murugan temple and the younger brother of A1 fell down and died. A1 presumed that it is only because of the deceased, who pushed down his brother, the incident had taken place. With this motive, the accused persons are said to have conspired and on 11.07.2013, at about 6:30 PM, when the deceased was proceeding in the street, both the accused persons, with deadly weapons, followed him and intercepted him. A2 caught hold of the deceased and A1 assaulted the deceased on his neck with aruval (MO1). Subsequently, A2 also assaulted the deceased with knife (MO2). As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his neck, left chest and other parts of the body and he died on the spot. PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW11 and based on the same, PW11 registered an FIR (Ex.P10) in Crime No.343 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 342 and 302 of IPC at about 19:45 hours.
3. PW12 took up the investigation and he went to the scene of crime at about 21:00 hours and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P11) and rough sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of witnesses. He also seized MO7 to MO9 under Athatchi (Ex.P13) in the presence of witnesses. He thereafter proceeded to Sivakasi Government Hospital at about 23:00 hours and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayathars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P15).
4. On 27.07.2013, at about 11:30 AM, he arrested both the accused persons and based on their confession, recovered MO1 and MO2 under Athatchi Ex.P4. At about 14:00 hours, MO3 to MO6 were seized from the accused persons under Athatchi (Ex.P5). The accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody.
5. The material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital through PW7 and the autopsy was conducted by PW8. The postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P9 and the following injuries were noted:
“External Injuries
1) An incised wound of Size 1 x 0.5 c.m. over the right cheek extending to the right ear lobe;
2) A linear abrasion of 10 x 0.2 c.m. seen over the right cheek extending from the front of right ear to below the right nostril;
3) An incised wound of Size 01.5 x 0.5 cm. over the right cheek lateral to the angle of the mouth;
4) An incised wound of Size 4 x 0.5 cm. seen over the jaw bone on right side with tailing towards the right side;
5) 11 x 3 x5 cm. cut injury seen on the neck extending from the middle of the neck to the right side cuttting the skin, subcutaneous tissue, trachea, great vessels of the neck. Edge of the wound found to be cleanly cut;
6) Another incised wound of Size 5 x 0.5 c.m. seen over the right side of the neck. Just 1 c.m. below and lateral to the wound No.5. with tailing towards the right side;
7) 2 x 0.5 c.m. incised wound seen in the middle of the neck, just below the thyroid cartilage;
8) A stab injury seen over the right chest wall 4 cm lateral from the middle of the sternum to 6 c.m. below the right clavicle in the mid clavicular line. Wound is horizontally placed, spindle shape of size 2.5 * 1.5 cm. with clean cut margins. On dissection the wound is found to be 3.5 cm in depth cutting the skin subcutaneous tissue, inter costal musscles, with direction from laterally to medially towards downwards;
9) Another Stab injury seen over the right chest wall 13 cm. laterally from the middle of the manubrium sterni and 10 cm below the anterior axillary fold in the anterior axillary line. The wound is horizontally placed spindle shape of size 2.5 * 1.5 c.m. with clean cut margins on dissections the wound is 3.5 cm. in depth cutting the skin subcutaneous tissue, inter costal musscles, downwards and medially;
10) A stab injury seen over the left side chest wall just above the left nipple 12 c.m. below the left clavicle 8 c.m. laterally from the middle of the sternum in mid clavicular line wound is spindle shape, horizontally palced of size 1 * 0.5 c.m. with clean cut margins on dissections the wound is 7 cm in depth cut in the skin, subcutaneous tissue, inter costal musscles, puncturing the left lung. Direction of the wound is from dabove downwards;
11) A stab injury of size 2.5 x 1 x 1 c.m. over the left forearm, 10 cm from the left wrist with clean cut margins exposing the musscles;
12) A incised wound of size 2.5 x 5.5 x 3 c.m. seen over the left wrist, margins clean cut exposing the wrist joint.
13) A incised wound of size 1 x 0.5 c.m. seen over the middle of right forearm;
14) A incised wound of size 4 x 1.5 x 2 cm seen over the back on right side just above the scapula;
15) A incised wound of size 1.5 x 0.5 x 1.5 c.m. seen over the back on the right side, 2 cm lateral to the mid line;
16) A incised wound of size 5 x 0.5 c.m. in the back of the neck just below the posterior hair line;
17) A incised wound of size 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. seen over the nape of the neck in the middle;
On opening the thorax
Ribs intact. Heart and lungs, pale. Left lung collapsed due to puncture wound of size 1 x 0.5 cm.
On opening the abdomen
Stomach contains 150 ml of partially digested food materials. Liver, Spleen, Both kidneys pale. Intestines distended. Contains yellowish fluid.
Hyoid intact
On opening the skull
Brain and Membranes intact. Brain pale. Post-mortem concluded at 12.15 p.m. on 12.07.2013. Death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.
Final opinion
The deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organs and great vessels of neck”
6. As per the final opinion, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs and great vessels of neck.
7. The Investigation Officer, after recording the statements of all witnesses under Section 161(3) of CrPC and after collecting the postmortem report, biological report and serological report, on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, which was taken on file in PRC No. 46 of 2013. After serving copies under Section 207 of CrPC, the case was committed and it was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur. The same was taken on file in S.C. No.43 of 2014.
8. The trial court framed charges against A1 for offences under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC and as against A2 for offences under Sections 342 and 302 of IPC. When the accused persons were questioned, they denied the charges.
9. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exhibits P1 to P18 and relied upon MO1 to MO11.
10. The incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
11. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses nor did they rely upon any documents.
12. The trial court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubts and accordingly, it convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
14. The main ground that was urged on the side of the appellants is that PW1 is the mother of the deceased and PW2 is the aunt of the deceased. Their evidence was relied upon by the prosecution as eyewitnesses and that their conduct is totally unnatural. It is further urged that both the accused persons had sustained injuries and the same is evident from the Accident Register which was marked as Exs.P7 and P8, and which has been spoken to by PW8 and these injuries sustained by the accused persons were not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the very genesis of the case of the prosecution is doubtful. It is further submitted that there is a wide discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence which improbabalise the eyewitnesses account.
15. PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, during crossexamination has stated that she along with PW2 and one Azhaguraja, were going at a distance of 10 feet behind the deceased and at that point of time, the accused persons came with weapons and they did not even caution the deceased. PW1 further states that after the incident, she took the body of her son and kept it on her lap and her saree was stained with blood. The blood-stained clothes of PW1 were not even seized by the police. She further states that Azhaguraja did not give any evidence in this case since he has nothing to do with the case.
16. PW2 almost reiterates the evidence of PW1 and the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW2 to corroborate the evidence of PW1.
17. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take note of the evidence of PW8. PW8, who is the doctor, who issued the accident register marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. Ex.P7 is the accident register in which the injuries sustained by A2 has been noted. Ex.P8 is the accident register given for treating A1 where the injuries sustained by him has been noted. PW8 in her evidence speaks about the injuries sustained by A1 and A2 and for proper appreciation, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW8 is extracted hereunder:
18. PW12, who is the Investigating Officer, was not able to explain how the accused persons had sustained injuries.
19. It is clear from the above that PW1 and PW2 did not speak the truth about the entire incident, since, admittedly, A1 and A2 had sustained injuries in the same incident and were treated by PW8. Unfortunately, PW12 has not investigated the reasons as to why A1 and A2 had sustained injuries in this case.
20. It is now too well settled that where the accused persons sustain injuries in the same incident, the same has to be explained by the prosecution. In the absence of the same, the genesis of the occurrence itself will be treated as being suppressed by the investigation and the benefit of doubt has to necessarily go in favour of the accused. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh and Others etc., v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 and in Muniyandi and Others v. State, reported in (2017) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 729.
21. In the case in hand, the so-called eyewitness account of PW1 and PW2 becomes questionable, since they do not talk about the injuries sustained by the accused persons and therefore, they are concealing the genesis of the case of the prosecution. It is not known as to who was the aggressor and whether such attack had taken place as a right of private defense.
22. Even otherwise, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are said to be eyewitness, is unnatural. They were walking 10 feet behind the deceased and they were aware that the accused persons are going to attack the deceased but they did not even caution the deceased. This is completely an unnatural conduct on the part of PW1, who is the mother of the deceased and PW2, who is the aunt of the deceased and it is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
23. The trial court, unfortunately, has not gone into this issue and has straightaway acted upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
24. In the light of the above discussion, the benefit of doubt has to necessarily go in favour of the appellants and they are entitled for acquittal from all charges. Accordingly, the judgment in S.C.No.43 of 2014, dated 24.03.2023, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur, is hereby set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants are set at liberty from all charges. A1, who is undergoing the sentence, shall be released from the jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Bail bond shall stand terminated. Fine amount paid, if any, is ordered to be refunded.
|
| |
