High Court set aside conviction and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for Chandran and Uma. Holding that conviction based solely on suspicious extra-judicial confession without independent corroboration is unsafe. Appellants acquitted and bail discharged.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bond discharged.
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. 703/2015
The Appellant/Accused NO. 2 namely Viz. Chandran S/O Late Victor directed to be released on bail as per the Order of this Court dated 24/02/2016 made in Crl.MP.1/15 in Crl A. 703/15
Bail Slip
C.A. 748/2015
The Appellant/Accused NO.1 namely ViZ. Uma, W/O late Victor directed to be released on bail Order on this Court 12/02/2016 made in Crl. MP. 1/15 in Crl.A. 748/15.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Appeal Nos.703 & 748 of 2015
Chandran .. Appellant/A.2 in Crl.A.703/2015
Uma .. Appellant/A.1 in Crl.A.748/2015
vs
State represented by
Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, K.v.Kuppam, Vellore District.
Crime No.295 of 2012. .. Respondent in both Crl.A.
Common Prayer in both Criminal Appeals:- These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., to set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants
by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in S.C.No.58 of 2014 dated 03.08.2015 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
In Crl.A.No.703 of 2015:-
For Appellant : Mr. R.John Sathya, for Mr.M.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,
Additional Public Prosecutor
In Crl.A.No. 748 of 2015:-
For Appellant : Mr. R.John Sathya, for Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant in Crl.A.No.703 of 2015 is A.2; and the appellant in Crl.A.No.748 of 2015 is A1, in S.C.No.58 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Vellore. A1 & A2 stood charged for an offence under Sections 302 IPC. After trial, by judgment dated 03.08.2015,the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.
Deceased, in this case, is one Victor. A1 is his second wife and A2 is his son through A1. A1 developed illicit intimacy with somebody. Hence, there was a quarrel between deceased and A1. After some time, deceased went to his first wife, P.W.2's house. On 25.07.2012, the deceased went to the house of the accused and there was a quarrel between the deceased and A1. At that time, P.W.2, first wife of the deceased was suffering from severe stomach pain and hence, P.W.1, brother of the deceased went for getting an autorickshaw to take her to the hospital, and P.W.2, and P.W.3, wife of P.W.1, were sitting near a library waiting for the auto. At that time, they saw the quarrel between the deceased and A1. When they questioned A2 about the quarrel, he casually told them that there is nothing much important. Subsequently, deceased was found missing, hence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, Ex.P.1 before the respondent police on 31.07.2012, at about 6.30 a.m.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of
the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.295 of 2012 for man missing. Then, he forwarded the First Information Report, Ex.P.21 to the Court and to the higher officials. On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.19, commenced investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence, namely, the house of the deceased and there, he prepared Observation Mahazar,Ex.P.4 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.30 and recorded the statement of the witnesses.
“ Injuries:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P.23 is the postmortem certificate given by P.W.15. He
also gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organs lungs and major vessels right neck and right collar bone. He was of the opinion that the deceased might to have died 7 days prior to the postmortem.
8.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and 41 documents were exhibited, besides 8 Material Objects.
Assistant, is also a witness to the Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P.15. P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the First Information Report for man missing. P.w.15, Doctor, conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased at the scene of occurrence and gave postmortem certificate, Ex.P.23. P.W.16, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, examined the visceral part of the deceased and gave report Ex.P.26. P.W.17, professor, Government Hospital, Aadukamparai, examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and gave report Ex.P.28.
before P.W.9, before whom A2 is said to have given an extra judicial confession. P.W.9 recorded the statement of A2 and along with his special report, he produced the accused before P.W.19, Investigating officer, at about 12.00 p.m. P.W.19 arrested them and before whom A2 once again gave a voluntary confession.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS VI )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
Crl.A.Nos.703 & 748 of 2015 KJ(CO) VR(23/02/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence in a case based on uncorroborated extra-judicial confession surrounded by suspicious circumstances should be set aside.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandran
Uma
State
S. Nagamuthu
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
