In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the recovery of ear studs was unidentifiable and witness testimony was inconclusive, dismissing the State's appeal and upholding the acquittal.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Appeal No.532 of 2015
State rep. by The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras, Yethapur Police Station. ... Appellant/Complainant -VsA.Subbarayan ... Respondent/Accused
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed by the Court of Sessions, Salem Division, Salem in S.C.No.373 of 2012 dated 14.07.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Raja Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mrs.Jayasri Baskar J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.)
This is an appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State. The respondent is the sole accused in S.C.No.373 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Salem Division at Salem. The respondent stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 14.07.2014, the Trial Court acquitted him from both the charges. Challenging the same, the State has come up with this appeal.
The deceased in this case was one Ayyammal. On 02.05.2012, the deceased had gone to a nearby forest taking the goats for grazing. At that time, it is alleged that the accused emerged there, attacked the deceased with a wooden log, killed her and
then removed a pair of golden ear studs from the ear lobes. Then he threw the dead body into a nearby bush and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.
"1. Abrasion over right side of neck extending from right mastoid process to centre of neck (12x2 cm) 2.Abrasion over side of neck extending from right mastoid process to right clavicle (12 x 2 cm) 3.Multiple abrasions over right collar bone
4.Graced abrasion over outer aspect of right fore arm (15 x 1 cm)
5.Laceration over right forehead (2 x 0.5 x 1 cm) 6.Laceration over mid occipital region (10 x 2 x bone deep) 7. Laceration over right ear lobule (1x 1 x 0.5 cm)
9.Abrasion over right maxilla (2 x 1 cm)
10.Peeling of cuticles of the inner aspect of left leg and left cheek and left forearm."
Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P10 is the final opinion. According to him, the death of the deceased was due to
shock and hemorrhage and due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.
and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects, which revealed that there were blood stains. P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case and the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and final report filed.
the said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. Apart from that, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.4, who has stated that on one day, the accused was found somewhere near the place where the deceased was grazing the cattle. But he has admitted that the accused and the deceased were relatives and he found both were talking in cordial terms. Thereafter, the accused has left the place. Therefore, the evidence of this witness cannot be conclusive to go to prove the alleged guilt of the accused. The Trial Court has appreciated these evidences in their proper perspectives and has come to the right conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. A close scrutiny of the entire evidences available on record would go to show that there is no defect or perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. In our considered view too, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. We do not find any merit at all in this appeal.
Crl.A.No.532 of 2015
SAI(CO)
CA(20/09/2016)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence including the recovery of ear studs?
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 404 IPC was perverse?
State rep. by The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras, Yethapur Police Station
A.Subbarayan
S.NAGAMUTHU
V.BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
