Allowed

Kalyanasundaram v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Aug 2014CRL A/242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals by the appellants convicted of murder. The bench set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, inadmissible statements, and call details failed to exclude innocent hypotheses or establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.2011 was set aside. The appellants are acquitted. Bail bonds are cancelled and they are released unless required in another case.

Kalyanasundaram Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14..08..2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶8

Crl.Appeal Nos.242 of 2012 and 790 of 2011

¶9

Crl.A.No.242 of 2012

Kalyanasundaram

... Appellant/A1

Versus

The Inspector Police, Kottucherry Police Station, Karaikkal, Pondicherry. [Crime No.140 of 2010] ... Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Crl.A.No.790 of 2011 1.Kalaivanan 2.Kumaresan ... Appellants/A2 and A3

¶15

Versus

¶16

Union Territory Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kottucherry Police Station, Karaikal District,Pondicherry. [Crime No.140 of 2010]

¶17

... Respondent/Complainant

¶18

PRAYER: These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal, dated 09.09.2011 made in S.C.No.36 of 2011.

¶19

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.B.Maheswaran, for Appellant/ A1 in Crl.A.No.242 of 2012
	: Mr.UM.Ravichandran, for Appellants/A2 and A3 in Crl.A.No.790 of 2011
For Respondent	: Mr.Thangavel, Spl. P.P. (Pudhcuerry) for Respondent in both Criminal Appeals

¶20

¶21

JUDGEMENT

¶22

[Judgment of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,]

¶23

The Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, who were convicted for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Three months each by judgment dated 09.09.2011 in S.C.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal, are the appellants before us.

¶24

The prosecution case begins with the evidence of Natarajan [P.W.1] who sensed a foul smell emanating from a water tank of an old Prawn Farm near Madha Koil Street, Poovam Kottucherry in Karaikkal on 30.12.2010 around 09.30 a.m., and out of curiosity, peeped into the tank and found a decomposed state of male body aged between 45 and 50 years floating in the tank. He was not able to identify the body and the name of the person. He went to the police station at Kottucherry and lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1] which was received by V.Purushothaman [P.W.25], the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Kottucherry Police Station Crime No.140 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on 30.12.2010 at 10.00 a.m. The printed F.I.R was marked as Ex.P.23. P.W.25V.Purushothaman, the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the place where the body was found at around 10.30 a.m. on 30.12.2010. He organized to have

¶25

¶26

photographs taken of the body by S.Murugan [P.W.22]. The Photographs were marked as M.O.15 and M.O.16. He prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch [Ex.P.2] in the presence of witnesses Parasuraman (not examined in court) and Pandiarajan [P.W.2]. He found a pair of slippers [M.O.1], hundred rupee currency notes [100 X 4 = 400 – M.O.2] and a visiting card of M/s.Malar Fabs [M.O.3] under the cover of mahazar [Ex.P.4]. He recorded the statements of Natarajan [P.W.1], Pandiarajan [P.W.2] and Parasuraman [not examined in court] in the presence of panchayatars and conducted inquest over the dead body. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P.13. The body was thereafter sent to the Government Hospital at Karaikal for autopsy. Dr.Narasima Murthi [P.W.21] conducted autopsy over the body and in his evidence as well as in the postmortem certificate he noted as follows:-

¶27

External Examination [including external injuries]

¶28

Deceased in an adult male aged about 45 years of moderate built and nourishment. Eyes closed, pupils dilated and conjunctiva pale. Rigor mortis has passed off, adipocere formation appreciable on trunk on either side, found smelling, maggots seen through nostrils and mouth.

¶29

External injuries

¶30

Incised injury two in no. seen parallel to each other apart by less than 0.2 cms seen on anterior aspect of neck below the level of thyroid cartilage, horizontally situated 21 X 0.5 X 0.5 cms extending from left side of neck (deeper)

¶31

¶32

to right side (shallow), edges are clear cut, even and everted.

¶33

Lacerated injury 6 X 0.5 X 0.5 cms on left lateral aspect of vault on parietal region of scalp, Lesions are fresh and antemortem in nature.

¶34

Internal Examination

¶35

Head, Scalp, skull, meninges, brain, spinal cord Scalp described, skull... fissured fracture hair line 6

¶36

cms long seen on left parietal bone, running on coronal plane towards vault meninges... minimal extradural haemorrhages seen. Brain in tact, decomposed and pale.

¶37

NECK, THORACIC WALL, PLEURA, LUNGS, HEART

¶38

Underlying tissues including external jugular vein and superior thyroid artery seen incised at external lesion site on left side, trachea and pharynx intact, lungs intact, decomosed and pale, thoracic cavity contained minimal fluid, heart softened, contained scanty fluid blood, coronaries patent.

¶39

ABDOMEN AND PELVIS

¶40

Stomach contained 250 cc colourless fluid material, smell of alcohol present, mucosa congested, decomposed; liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines intact, decomposed and pale; bladder empty.”

¶41

After receiving the viscera report [Ex.P.20], he opined the cause of death as

¶42

¶43

“Hypovolaemic Shock as a result of cut throat injury”.

¶44

V.Purushothaman [P.W.25], the Sub Inspector of Police contacted Anburaj [P.W.13] whose name and the mobile number was found in the visiting card [M.O.3] and enquired him about Malar Fabs and also told him about the presence of a male body in the water tank of an old prawn farm. Since Anburaj [P.W.13] had quit from the partnership of Malar Fabs some time in March 2010, he was not able to provide any substantial clue to the police. Further, the police had contacted him only over phone and therefore, he did not have an opportunity of seeing the dead body on 30.12.2010. It appears that Anburaj [P.W.13] seems to have shared the enquiry made by the Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.25] with Ramesh [P.W.14] who was working as Manager in Malar Fabs. Therefore, the news spread in Tiruppur area that the body of a person concerned with Malar Fabs has been found in Karaikal. On 31.12.2010, one Paul Durai (P.W.3) met the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.25) and wanted to see the body of the person which was found dead in the water tank. He was taken to the mortuary where he identified the deceased as his own brother Ashok Kumar. A statement was recorded from Paul Durai based on which, the case was altered from one under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. to 302 of IPC and a report [Ex.P.24] was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by Rajasankar Vellat [P.W.26], Inspector of Police, Kottucherry Police Station on

¶45

¶46

31.12.2010. He enquired some witnesses and sent a further alteration report , altering the offence from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. On 01.01.2011 at 20.15 hours based on credible intelligence he arrested Kalayanasundaram (A1) near Poovam bus stand and brought him to the police station. In the presence of Gunasekaran (P.W.4), a revenue officer and M.S.Jeromne, the Village Administrative Officer [not examined in court] , he recorded the confession statement of Kalayanasundaram (A1) and came to know about the involvement of Kalaivanan (A2) and Kumaresan (A3). From the possession of Kalayanasundaram (A1), the investigating officer seized a mobile phone [M.O.8] under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.6) on 01.01.2011 at 23.50 hours. On 02.01.2011 at 04.45 hours Kalaivanan (A2) was arrested and at 04.45 hours Kumaresan (A3) was arrested by the investigating officer at Manikandanallur. They were brought to the police station and their confession statements were recorded. On the disclosure made by A1, the investigating officer seized a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the sister's house of A1 under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P.11) in the presence of witnesses Gunasekaran (P.W.4) and Jeromne (not examined in court). The investigating officer found that the mobile phone (M.O.8) had two SIM Cards viz., a Vodafone card [M.O.19] and Airtel card [M.O.20]. It appears that on 02.01.2011 at about 12.15 hours, the Inspector of Police (P.W.26) went to the water tank and from near water tank, he seized a stone (M.O.9 blue metal), Supermax Blade (M.O.10), a white sleeveless Banian

¶47

¶48

(M.O.11) and a black colour Sigmatel Cellphone (M.O.12) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P.10) in the presence of Gunasekaran (P.W.4) and Jeromne (not examined in court). At this juncture, it may be relevant to state that in Ex.P.10 Mahazar, it is stated that sigmatel cellphone belongs to Kalayanasundaram (A1) and that it was found on the floor of the water tank in which there was water as stated in the mahazar (Ex.P.10). On 02.01.2011 all the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for remand. On 05.01.2011, the investigating officer examined Kavitha (P.W.6), Jayaprakash (P.W.7), Haja Maraicar (P.W.8), MohaN (P.W.9) and A.Selvaraj (P.W.10) and recorded their statements. On 06.01.2011, he went with a team of officers to Tiruppur and examined Mrs.Malathi (P.W.11), the wife of the deceased, Anburaj (P.W.13) and Ramesh (P.W.14) . On 07.01.2011, he examined P.Krishnan (P.W.12), a relative of the deceased, P.Sakthivel (P.W.15), V.Sridhar (P.W.16) and N.Vengadachalam (P.W.17) at Bhavani. On 10.01.2011, he recorded the statement of T.Sakthivel (P.W.18) and P.Arutselvam (P.W.19). He received from Arutselvam (P.W.19) an application dated 22.12.2010 (Ex.P.17) tendered by A1 with a Passport Size Photograph of A1 affixed on the application for obtaining a vodafone SIM card for the mobile connection 9626026980. He also identified the vodafone SIM Card which was marked as M.O.14. The investigating officer took steps to obtain call details relating to the vodafone SIM Card bearing Cell No. 9626026980 (M.O.14) from the company. Similarly, he also took steps to obtain call details from Aircel

¶49

¶50

SIM Card bearing Cell number 9524473217, the mobile phone number that was used by the deceased. He received the calls details from the two companies. On 24.02.2011, he examined Sunil (P.W.20), the Manager of Vodafone and Vijayakumar (P.W.24), an Executive from Aircel with regard to the call details that he received from the mobile phone companies. On 08.03.2011, he examined the Doctor who conducted autopsy and collected the post-mortem certificate. On completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed final report against the appellants for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikkal, who took the same on file in PRC No.5 of 2011. On the appearance of the accused, the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Puducherry and later on, transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikkal where, a charge under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against all the accused. When questioned, they pleaded not guilty to the charge.

¶51

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and A1 were friends; A1 had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and when the deceased started demanding the return of the money, the accused assaulted him on 21.12.2010 at about 13.30 hours at DCM Old Prawn Water Tank, Karaikal and murdered him by slitting his throat with a blade and also by throwing a stone on him.

¶52

During trial, the prosecution examined 26 Witnesses, marked 29 Exhibits and 20 Material Objects. When the accused were questioned about the

¶53

¶54

incriminating sentences, they generally denied the same and A1 gave explanation for certain questions. No witness was, however, examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused. After having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and hence, these appeals.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Puducherry.

¶56

This case revolves on circumstantial evidence. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down the law relating to circumstantial evidence in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore , AIR 1960 SC 29 wherein the Apex Court has held that in a case based on circumstantial evidences, each circumstance should be fully established and the circumstances should exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. But, at the same time, the accused also cannot propose extravagant hypothesis. Bearing the above principle in mind, we proceeded to appraise the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case. We have no doubt in our mind that the deceased in this case viz., Ashok Kumar is the husband of Malathi (P.W.11). Through the evidence of S.Paul Durai (P.W.3), the brother of the deceased, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the identity of the dead body as that of Ashok Kumar. From the evidence of Natarajan (P.W.1) and V.Purushothaman (P.W.25), the Sub Inspector of Police, the prosecution has established that the body was found in

¶57

¶58

the water tank in DCM Prawn Farm.

¶59

Dr.Narasimha Murthi (P.W.21) in his evidence has stated that he conducted autopsy over the body and has given an opinion that the death was due to Hypovolaemic Shock as a result of cut injury in the throat. We have no doubt in our mind that Ashok Kumar's death was homicidal. The question is, whether the accused were the perpetrators of the crime. From the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11), Krishnan (P.W.12), Anburaj (P.W.13) and Ramesh (P.W.14), the prosecution has established that the deceased was working in Malar Fabs and was last seen on 20.12.2010. Malathi (P.W.11), the wife of the deceased has in her evidence stated that her husband was using mobile phone [Aircel] bearing number 9524473217.Though, this connection does not stand in the name of the deceased, it is the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.12), the brother in law of Malathi (P.W.11) that he had obtained a SIM Card from Sophia Mobiles at Andhiyur and had given it to the deceased. Sakthivel (P.W.15), who runs Sophia Mobiles at Andhiyur in his evidence before the court stated that one Vengatachalam (P.W.17) had ordered for mobile connection bearing 9524473217 but, he did not come to collect the SIM Card for a long time. Hence, he sold it to Krishnan (P.W.12). Vengadachalam (P.W.17) in his evidence stated that he had ordered with Sophia Mobiles for purchasing a Aircel Sim Card, but he did not collect it from them. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) that her deceased husband was using mobile phone connection bearing

¶60

¶61

Number 9524473217 (Aircel) .

¶62

As regards the motive for the offence, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ashok Kumar and Kalyanasundaram (A1) were working together in Malar Fabs in Tiruppur and Kalyanasundaram (A1) had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution examined Malathi (P.W.11) and Ramesh (P.W.14), who is the Manager of Malar Fabs. Even A1 in his 313 examination has accepted that the deceased Ashok Kumar and he were working in Malar Fabs. As regards amount of Rs.10,000/- allegedly obtained by A1 from the deceased as loan, we have the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) and Ramesh (P.W.14). Malathi (P.W.11) in her evidence stated that her husband Ashok Kumar and Kalyanasundaram (A1) were friends and both of them were working in Malar Fabs and some time in the year 2007 A1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her husband. Her husband was demanding from A1 to return the money, but, A1 was evading payment. It is her evidence that A1 hails from Sembanarkoil near Mayiladuthurai and they hail from Tiruppur. Here it is to be noted that the distance between Mayiladuthurai and Tiruppur is about 287 kms. Malathi (P.W.11) in her evidence stated that on 20.12.2010 her husband left the house around 7 O' clock in the evening telling her that he is going to Sembanarkoil to meet A1 for getting back the money lent by him. She also stated that on the next day i.e., on 21.10.2010 in the morning her husband called her over phone and told her that he had

¶63

¶64

reached Mayiladuthurai. Thereafter, she did not receive any communication from her husband. On 21.12.2010, her attempts to contact her husband in his mobile phone proved futile as it was switched off. Her husband had told her that he would also go to his mother's house in Palangulam on his way back and so when she contacted there, she was told that her husband had not come there also. On 30.12.2010, she learnt through her brother-in-law Paul Durai (P.W.3) that Karaikkal police have been contacting people at Malar Fabs with regard to a body found there. On account of which, Paul Durai (P.W.3) went to Karaikkal and learnt about the death of Ashok Kumar and informed Malathi (P.W.11). Malathi (P.W.11) identified the slippers and the dresses of her husband, the deceased. We have no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Malathi (P.W.11) and therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved that Kalyanasundaram (A1) had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and the deceased had left Tiruppur on 20.12.2010 to meet Kalyanasundaram (A1) at Sembanarkoil for collecting the money. In her cross examination, Malathi (P.W.11) has stated that on 23.12.2010, people from Malar Fabs came to her house and contacted Kalyanasundaram (A1) in his mobile phone and at that time A1 told them that the deceased had not come to meet him. The question that nags us is why and how the deceased went to Karaikkal which is in Puducherry, whereas Kalyanasundaram (A1) is a resident of Sembanarkoil in Tamil Nadu. The distance between Sembanarkoil and Kotturcherry near Karaikkal is about 25 kms. If the

¶65

¶66

body of the deceased was found somewhere near Sembanarkoil then, the needle of suspicion on A1 will be strong. The prosecution strongly relies upon the evidence of Kavitha (P.W.6) , Jayaprakash (P.W.7), Haja Maraicar (P.W.8), Mohan (P.W.9) and Selvaraj (P.W.10) in order to prove that A1 to A3 were found in the company of the deceased at Karaikkal. Now, we propose to analyse the evidence of each of these witnesses independently.

¶67

Kavitha (P.W.6) in her evidence stated that she belongs to Poovam in Karaikkal and has a petty shop there. On 02.01.2011, between 09.30 and 10.30 a.m. police brought three accused to her shop and asked her as to whether she can identify any of them. In response to the same, she told the police that a week before A3 came to her shop and purchased one tobacco packet, two super max blade and one Anacin Tablet and paid Rs.20/-. This evidence is wholly inadmissible because it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In her cross examination, she stated that she cannot identify the persons, who had come to her shop in January 2011. Jayaprakash (P.W.7) in his evidence stated that he is running a toddy shop in Poovam Village in Karaikkal. He further stated that one day A1 came to his shop and had toddy. He also stated that one week prior to the date on which the body of the deceased was found in the water tank, A2 and A3 came to his toddy shop and had toddy. They gave Rs.100/- and picked up a quarrel with him asking for change. He gave them the change and sent them away. On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 in the morning, the police brought all the three

¶68

¶69

accused and asked him as to whether he knows them. He told the police that he knows A2 and A3. In the cross examination, he stated that all the three accused were brought to his toddy shop by the police with handcuffs. Haja Maraicar (P.W.8) in his evidence stated that he has a shop near Pondicherry Check-post where he sells briyani. He stated in his evidence that on 02.01.2011 around 11.00 a.m. police brought all the three accused in a jeep and asked him whether he knows the accused. He told them that a week or 10 days prior , accused came to his shop and were talking. He further stated himself in the chief examination that there were four persons. All the four were sitting near the shop and were talking and he asked them to move away from there. Hence, all the accused left towards a bar of one Selva. He further stated that A1, A2 and A3 came back and purchased briyani from him. Mohan (P.W.9) in his evidence stated that he is the cashier in the bar at Poovam. On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 O' clock in the morning the police brought all the three accused and asked whether he knows them. He told the police that he knew A2 and A3 and about 10 days before they came to his shop and had liquor. He also stated that A2 and A3 picked up quarrel with an old man in the bar and so he sent them out of the bar. Selvaraj (P.W.10) in his evidence stated that he runs a canteen in the liquor bar at Poovam. On 02.01.2011 around 10.00 a.m., the police brought three accused and asked him whether he knows them for which he told the police that a week or 10 days before A2 and A3 came and had tiffin in his canteen. They

¶70

¶71

did not make payment and picked up quarrel with him.

¶72

We are unable to understand as to how , these evidences are admissible in view of the bar contained under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No test identification parade was conducted by the police for these witnesses to identify the accused. The Police had just like that brought them to their shops and asked them whether they have seen the accused ever before. None of these witnesses stated that these accused were found in the company of the deceased. Even if we accept their identification in the court for the first time, by ignoring their identification on 02.01.2011 at the instance of police, nothing comes out of this. They have not given the date and they simply stated that a week before the accused came and had liquor, ate tiffin in the canteen and picked up quarrel with someone. It is not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses knew the accused.

¶73

The prosecution relies upon the mobile call details of 9626026980 belonging to A1 and the call details of 9524473217 belong to the deceased which were proved through the evidence of Sunil (P.W.20) and Vijayakumar (P.W.24) and were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 respectively. On a careful perusal of Ex.P.19, the call details relating to Vodafone connection of A1, it could be seen that the last call was made on 30.12.2010 at 18.00 hours. Thereafter, there is no call details. According to the police A1 was arrested on 01.01.2011 whereas Paul Durai (P.W.3) , the brother of the deceased has in his cross examination stated

¶74

¶75

that on 31.12.2010 when he went to the police station at 11.00 a.m. he found A1, A2 and A3 there. This clearly demolishes the prosecution evidence that A1 was arrested only on 01.01.2011 and coupled with this piece of evidence if we see the call details Ex.P.19, there is no call made after 30.12.2010 by A1 which shows that A1 had come into the custody of police from 30.12.2010 itself and that was why, Paul Durai (P.W.3) had been able to see A1, A2 and A3 in the police station on 31.12.2010 in the morning.

¶76

The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased has received phone calls in his mobile phone from A1 up to 10.20 a.m. On 21.12.2010.

¶77

We perused the call details of mobile phone (Aircel) bearing No.9524473217 (Ex.P.22) and found that on 21.10.2010 at 10.20 a.m. The deceased has received a call from 9626026980 which admittedly belongs to A1. The last call made by the deceased is to 9789118491. The prosecution has not investigated the fact as to whom the deceased has spoken to in this number. The fact that A1 and the deceased have been speaking over mobile phone would itself show that they were not together. From Ex.P.19, it could be seen that on 21.12.2010, from 06.53 a.m. to 12.00 noon, the accused has been in Varichikudi and Poraiyar areas (Tower Locations), but whereas the deceased was in Kamaraj Salai, Kottucherry, Karaikkal area. The call details can at the most prove that the deceased and A1 were talking to each other over phone and it cannot prove

¶78

¶79

anything beyond that, much less, the fact in issue.

¶80

The prosecution contended that the accused had lost his mobile on 21.12.2010 after committing the crime and that mobile phone is M.O.12. Mobile Phone (M.O.12) was seized by the police under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.10) only on 02.01.2011. The investigating officer admitted that he went to the tank on 31.12.2010 and at that time also, he did not find any mobile phone in the tank. But, strangely, the mobile phone surfaced on 02.01.2011 which we are unable to believe. In order to prove that the accused had lost his mobile phone and had obtained a new SIM card with the same mobile number on 22.12.2010, the prosecution strongly relied upon the evidence of Arutselvam (P.W.19) and Ex.P.17. On a careful perusal of application form (Ex.P.17) that was submitted by A1, it could be seen that A1 has purchased a new SIM card with the same mobile number on the ground the old SIM card got damaged and not on the ground that it was lost. There are six columns in the application form (Ex.P.17) and they are (1) Blocked, (2) Damaged, (3) Lost, (4) Faulty, (5) Upgrade and (6) Other and the applicant was required to tick any one of them. A1 has ticked the column “Damaged” and not column “Lost”. Even in the 313 examination , A1 admitted that he changed the SIM Card on 22.12.2010 as his old SIM card got damaged. He did not give any false explanation. According to the police, mobile phone (M.O.12) that was recovered from the tank on 02.01.2011 also had two SIM Cards and one SIM Card is bearing Phone No.9524473217 (Aircel). In one

¶81

¶82

breath, the prosecution says that M.O.12 belongs to A1, but in other breath they say that it contained SIM Card belonging to the deceased. To recapitulate, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the mobile (M.O.8) had two SIM Cards and the mobile (M.O.12) also had two SIM Cards. But, we have the call details of only two mobile numbers viz., 9626026980 [Ex.P.19] belonging to A1 and 9524473217 Aircel [Ex.P.22] belonging to the deceased. It is not known as to what happened to the other two SIM Cards and what those call details are and to whom they belong to.

¶83

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution even remotely point to the guilt of the accused and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellants/A1 to A3 is liable to be set aside.

¶84

In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 09.09.2011 recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,Karaikal, in S.C.No.36 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Three months each is hereby set aside. The Appellants/A1 to A3 are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them in accordance with law. Bail Bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. They shall be released unless they are required in any other case.

¶85

¶86

Index : yes [S.R.J.,] [P.N.P.J.,] Internet : yes 14..08.2014 kmk

¶87

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal,

¶88

2.The Inspector of Police, Kottucherry Police Station,

¶89

Karaikal District, Pondicherry.

¶90

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶91

¶92

S.RAJESWARAN, J., AND P.N.PRAKASH, J.

¶93

kmk

¶94

Pre delivery common Judgment

¶95

¶96

Criminal Appeal Nos.242 of 2012 and 790 of 2011

¶97

14..08..2014

Kalyanasundaram v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyanasundaram v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Rathna Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ibrahim Vs the Inspector of Police

Arif Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.Baghyam Vs the District Collector Cum

Mrs.Ramani Vs the Inspector Ofp Olice

Sumathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu