| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 3343
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : Crl. A. (MD)No. 721 of 2023 & 1 of 2024 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Parties : Narendra Pal & Another Versus State through the Inspector of Police, Thiruvengadam Police Station, Tirunelveli |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: SGL. Rishwanth for Vinoth Bharathi, Advocates. For the Respondent: E. Antony Sahaya Prabakar, Additional Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 28-04-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) -
|
| Summary :- |
| Mistral API responded but no summary was generated. |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2023 in S.C.No.102of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.)
Common Judgment:
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been filed by A2 and A1 respectively assailing the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in SC NO.102/2019 dated 20.04.2023, wherein, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
| Rank of the accused | Offence (IPC) | Sentence | | A1 | 120(B) | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment | | A1 | 302 | Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month | | A2 | 120(B) | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment | | A2 | 302 | Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month | | A2 | 25(1)(AA) of the Arms Act 1959 | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 belonged to the State of Uttar Pradesh and they were engaged in selling cotton candy. Both of them were friends of the co-accused Janakiram @ Siva, who was working as a Driver at SKR Lorry service at Kovilpatti. Insofar as Janakiram @ Siva (A3) is concerned, the case was split up since he was absconding and A3 underwent separate trial in SC NO.388/2021 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. The further case of the prosecution is that A3 asked A2 to buy a pistol with bullets and accordingly it was bought and handed over to A3. On 25.10.2011, one day before Diwali, Janakiram @ Siva and A1 came in a bike and picked up A2. While travelling in the bike, A2 asked as to where they were going and he was informed that they were going to kill a person. Immediately A2 got off from the bike and the other two accused persons went to Naduvapatti Cooperative Society at about 11.00 p.m. The deceased was the Watchman at that point of time and he questioned. Janakiram @ Siva is said to have shot him with the pistol and he fell down dead. They left the place in the two wheeler and picked up A2 on the way. Thereafter all the three accused persons dispersed and were working at different places.
3. PW1 is the son of the deceased. Since the deceased did not return back home, he went to the cooperative society the next day at about 7.30 a.m. and he found his father lying in the floor. He found his father dead. This was informed to PW2, who was the wife of the deceased and she also came to the scene of crime.
4. PW1 gave the complaint (Ex.P1) on 26.10.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. to PW15, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police and based on the complaint, an FIR (Ex.P15) came to be registered in Crime No.357/2011 for offences under Section 302 IPC and 25(2) of the Arms Act. Express FIR was sent through PW17 to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankoil.
5. PW22 took up the investigation and he went to the scene of crime at about 9.15 a.m. and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P32). From the scene of crime, PW22 seized empty cartridge (MO3) under Athatchi Ex.P3 and bloodstained shawl and swab under Athatchi (Ex.P4) at about 12.45 p.m.
6. In the meantime, PW22 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P33).
7. The material objects that were seized were sent to the Court under Form 91.
8. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by PW12 and postmortem report (Ex.P13) was issued by noting down the following injuries:
“An oval shaped lacerated punctured wound (bullet entry wound) of size 1.5 horizontally and 1 cm vertically seen over left side of chest. It lies 17 cms below middle of left clavicle 3.5 cm left to anterior midline and 4 cms inner to left nipple.
The margin of the wound shows abrasion and contusion collar measuring 1 mm in the inner aspect and 1 mm in the outer aspect. Black colour powder tatooing seen in and around the aspect of the wound and it extends upto 6 cm from the outer margin of the wound. The margins of the wound are inverted (entry)
The bullet track passes downwards medially and backwards. It passes through the left fifth intercostal from 1 cm outer to the left margin of sternum and periorates through and through the lingular segment of upper lobe of left lung and enters in to anterior javer of pericardium and passes through anterior wall of left ventricle, inter ventricular septum right ventricle posterior layer of pericardium and crosses infront of body of vertebra and enters into right pleural cavity and cause fracture of right 10th rib near to its vertebral attachment and gel lodged in posterior para spinal muscle on right side. Total bullet track measures 71 cms.
The bullet was recovered and it is yellow in colour and without deformation. Undissection of thorax and abdomen left pleural cavity contains about 1025 gms of clotted blood and 200 ml of fluid blood. Left lung found shrunken.”
The final opinion was given to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic shock due to the fire arm bullet injury to left side of chest.
9. The bullet inside the dead body of the deceased was handed over to PW22 on 27.10.2011 and the same was sent to the Court under Form 95 (Ex.P36). After the postmortem, the clothes of the deceased was handed over and the same was sent under Form 95 (Ex.P37). The same is MO10 and MO11. PW22 also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.
10. The investigation was taken over by PW21 and the investigating officer arrested A2 on 02.07.2015 at about 7.30 a.m. He was brought to the police station and since he knew only Hindi Language, PW21 took the assistance of PW6, who is a Hindi Teacher and based on his confession, a mobile phone with sim card and a two wheeler (MO8 and MO9) were seized under Athatchi Ex.P28. The accused person was produced before the concerned Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. He also recorded the statement of witnesses for the arrest and recovery under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
11. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW19. He, in the course of investigation, arrested Janakiram @ Siva on 15.02.2017 at 12 noon and based on his confession, a pistol and four bullets were seized under Athatchi Ex.P21 in the presence of witnesses. The same was sent to the Court under Form 95 (Ex.P22).
12. In the course of investigation, A1 was arrested on 09.05.2017 at about 11.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses and based on his confession, a mobile phone along with sim card was seized under Athatchi Ex.P24. He was produced before the concerned court and remanded to judicial custody. PW19 recorded the statements of certain witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
13. The investigation was subsequently taken over by PW23 and he recorded the statement of certain witnesses and collected various reports and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil and it was taken on file in PRC No. 14/2018. After serving the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C. and was made over to the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Tirunelveli. As stated supra, the case against A3 was split up and A1 and A2 alone underwent trial in this case.
14. The trial court framed the following charges against the accused persons:
| S.No. | Rank of the accused | Offences under Sections (IPC) | | 1 | A1 and A2 | 120(B) | | 2 | A2 | 25(1)(AA) of Arms Act | | 3 | A1 and A2 | 302 r/w 34 |
The above charges were put to the accused persons and they denied the same as false.
15. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW23 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P43 besides MO1 to MO12.
16. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
17. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses nor did they mark any documents.
18. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts through circumstantial evidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed before this court.
19. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
20. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were relied upon by the prosecution are :
(a) Confession of Janakiram @ Siva based on which the pistol and bullets were seized;
(b) Confession and recovery from A1 and A2;
(c) The evidence of finger print expert and
(d) The ballistic expert report.
21. In the case in hand, the incident had taken place one day prior to Diwali and it came to light on 26.10.2011 when the son of the deceased (PW1) went to the Cooperative Society and found his father lying dead.
22. The first person arrested in this case was A2 after more than four years on 02.07.2015. It is not known as to why in the first place A2 was arrested. In any case, the so called recovery from A2 was a mobile phone with sim card and a two wheeler. Nothing turns out of this recovery. The same is the case of A1 also, who was arrested by PW19 on 09.05.2017. His arrest also lead to the recovery of a mobile phone with sim card and nothing more.
23. The prosecution is relying upon the admissible portion of the confession of the other accused person namely Janakiram @ Siva, which leads to the seizure of the gun, bullet and bag under Athatchi Ex.P21. The witnesses namely PW4 and PW5, who were examined on the side of the prosecution for confession, turned hostile. In any event, the recovery of the pistol and bullets in no way incriminates A1 and A2 in this case. Therefore, the first circumstance does not take the case of the prosecution any further and it is not even an incriminating circumstance against A1 and A2.
24. The next important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of finger print expert. He was examined as PW14. For proper appreciation, the evidence of PW14 is extracted hereunder:
25. What becomes clear from the above deposition is that there is no reference as to whether the sample finger prints of the accused persons were taken and whether they were counter checked with the so called finger prints that were lifted from the scene of crime. According to PW14, the finger prints matched. But curiously not even the report of the finger print expert has been marked as a document and in this case there is absolutely no explanation available from any of the investigating officers as to who took the sample finger prints from the accused persons and if at all finger prints matched, where is the report which specifically talks about the matching of the finger prints of each of the accused person. The so called evidence of PW14 does not move this case even an inch and nothing comes out of the evidence of PW14.
26. The next circumstance that is relied upon by the prosecution is the report of the ballistic expert. PW8 was examined on the side of the prosecution and he is the person, who is said to have assisted the police to recover the empty cartridge which was marked as MO3. PW11 is yet another ballistic expert, who has opined that the bullets which were seized were used in the pistol that was recovered in the course of investigation. The report submitted by PW11 has been marked as Ex.P12.
27. Yet another witness, who was examined on the side of the prosecution, is PW16, who also speaks about the empty cartridge that was recovered and opines that the same could have been used for the bullets which in turn was used in the pistol. The report submitted by this witness has been marked as Ex.P16.
28. In our considered view, the evidence of these experts and the reports submitted by them, do not in any way connect A1 and A2 to the crime. At the best, these are opinions and reports pertaining to the pistol, bullets, empty cartridge and the traces of copper that were detected in the clothes that were worn by the deceased. This circumstance does not in any way connect A1 and A2 to the crime.
29. In the considered view of this Court, the case in hand is a standing example of how prosecution sometimes fixes the accused persons in a crime where the investigating officer is not able to find the real culprits. Just because, the prosecution wanted to somehow conclude the investigation, two innocent persons have been unnecessarily roped in this case and since the crime involved usage of pistol, the prosecution has come up with a story as if A1 and A2 belong to Uttar Pradesh and A2 got the pistol and handed it over to Janakiram @ Siva. The entire case of the prosecution is a figment of imagination and this case is one of the pathetic display of how a criminal case should not be investigated. Unfortunately, two innocent persons have been roped in in this case and they underwent the ordeal of trial and also untold agony and hardship.
30. In a case involving circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to fully prove every circumstance and each circumstance must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In the case in hand, not even a single circumstance has been proved by the prosecution to connect A1 and A2 into the alleged crime.
31. It is even more disappointing that the trial Court without a scrap of evidence has proceeded to convict the accused persons on mere surmises and conjunctures.
32. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.04.2023 passed in SC No.102 of 2019 by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli is hereby set aside.
33. In the result, the criminal appeals stand allowed and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges and they are set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.
|
| |
