High Court allowed appeals against conviction and sentence for murder. Court acquitted appellants, holding prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to flawed chain of circumstances and unreliable extra-judicial confession.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; fine refunded; bail bonds terminated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip
Crl.A.Nos.360 and 542 of 2015
That the Appellant(1st Accused namely Muthavel S/o. Neelamegam and the Appellant/2nd Accused namely J. Veeramani S/o. Jeyaraman, were released on bail by the order of this court dated 31.07.2015 made in MP.1/2015 in Crl.A.360 of 2015 and 09.09.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.542/2015.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.07.2016
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.A.Nos.360 and 542 of 2015 Muthuvel .. Appellant in Crl.A.360 of 2015 J.Veeramani .. Appellant in Crl.A.542 of 2015 Vs State represented by Inspector of Police Kuvagam Police Station Ariyalur District. .. Respondent in both appeals
Appeals filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, in S.C.No.48 of 2014 on 23.03.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Selvarangan For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,] The accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.48 of 2014, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, are the appellants in the above
appeals. A1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.360 of 2015 and A2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.542 of 2015. Both the accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC and the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 364 IPC and sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment and convicted them under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the above appeals.
(i) The deceased in this case is one Kumar. Both the deceased and the accused are residents of Edayakurichi village. On 12.05.2013, there was a quarrel between the accused and brother of A1. Due to the same, the appellants came to the house of the deceased in search of him and enquired the whereabouts of the deceased from PW.1, the brother of the deceased. Since the deceased did not return home, P.Ws.1 and 2, went in search of him. At that time, they saw both the accused came from a cashew nut grove in a mud road. After seeing PW.1, A1 told him that they already murdered his brother and they also warned him with dire consequences. Then PW.1 searched for the deceased and found him dead. Immediately, PW.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1).
(ii) PW.17, Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent police on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2013, for an offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared First Information Report EX.P10, and sent the same to the higher officials.
(iii) PW.19 in-charge Inspector of the respondent police, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 2 a.m, and sent the body for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Jayankondam and at 6 a.m, prepared Observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses and also recovered empty liquor bottle and chappel.
(iv) PW.16, Doctor working in Government Hospital, Jayankondam conducted postmortem (autopsy) on the dead body and found the following injuries. External injuries:
Internal Examination: Neck : Hyoid bone preserved for Chemical report. Thorax : No # of ribs on both sides. Lungs : both sides congested. Heart : All chambers empty. Abdomen : Stomach contains 50 ml of brownish liquid with alcoholic odour present. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys : all are congested. Bladder : Empty. Scrotum : No evidence of injury. Skull : 1 cm x 0.5 cm linear fracture of left frontal bone present. Brain : Clotted blood present (Lt) frontal lobe of brain.
and he had also given the postmortem report Ex.P9 and he was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage following injuries to vital organs, namely brain, and the deceased was also under alcoholic influence. He was also of the opinion that the injuries are also likely to occur in a motor accident.
(v) In the mean time, both the accused appeared before PW.12, Village Administrative Officer and gave extra-judicial confession on 14.05.2013, at about 2 p.m. PW.12 recorded the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P6, and produced the accused before PW.19. PW.19 arrested them and on such arrest, they voluntarily gave confession, based on the disclosure statement, he seized a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-61-D-1667 and also seized the pant (M.O.8), shirt (M.O.9) and T-shirt (M.O.10) and he remanded the accused to the judicial custody. Then PW.19 handed over the investigation to the regular Inspector of Police (PW.20). PW.20, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
reasonable doubt, which unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused. The only remaining circumstance is the last seen theory as spoken by PWs.8, 9, 10 & 11. Even though it is an important link in a chain of circumstances, but it is not prudent to base the conviction solely on the last seen theory alone and it is highly unsafe to convict the accused based on the last seen theory alone. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mra
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.
2 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur
3. The Inspector of Police
Kuvagam Police Station
Ariyalur District.
4 The Superintendent
Central Prison, Trichy
5 The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai
6 The Judicial Magistrate,
Jayankondam
7 do The Chief Judicial Magistrate Ariyalur
8 The District Collector Ariyalur
9 The Director General of Police Mylapore Chennai 600 004
+1cc to Mr.R. Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.39289
nm(CO)
md(27/01/2017)
Crl.A.Nos.360 and 542 of 2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the extra-judicial confession can be relied upon given the timing discrepancies.
Whether conviction based solely on the last seen theory is safe in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muthavel
J. Veeramani
State represented by Inspector of Police Kuvagam
V.BHARATHIDASAN
S.NAGAMUTHU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
