Krishnamurthy Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krishnamurthy Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; conviction and sentence in S.C.No.287 of 2016 and their confirmation in Crl.A.No.226 of 2019 set aside; petitioner acquitted of all charges; bail bond, if any executed, cancelled; fine, if any paid, to be refunded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's identification as the assailant is reliable, given the absence of a test identification parade and identification for the first time in the dock almost four years after the occurrence. +3 more

Court's answer

The identification of the petitioner is doubtful: no test identification parade was conducted and the petitioner was identified for the first time in the dock almost four years after the occurrence of 15.04.2013.

Ratio / Principle

The Accident Registers record the assailant as an unknown person, and PW1's husband Ramachandran, who was with her in both hospitals and on whose behalf the complaint was signed, was not examined; PW2's earlier police statement omitted that he saw the accused fleeing on a cycle and PW5 did not support the prosecution, leaving only PW1's evidence.

Key takeaways

No explanation was given for the non-examination of the Duty Doctor Dr.V.Jayanthi, who gave the fitness report, attested Ex.P1 and issued Ex.P10, though an explanation existed for Dr.Dinesh's non-examination.ratio¶63
The arrest and recovery become doubtful in view of the contradictory statements between the evidence of PW6 (Village Administrative Officer) and PW7 (Village Assistant).ratio¶63
The recovery is doubtful: it took place near the house of Tamilarasi, said to be the petitioner's sister, who was not a witness to the seizure mahazar (Ex.P5), and the properties reached the court only on 17.02.2014 (Ex.P11) with no explanation for the delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision - acquittal - Madras High Court sets aside the concurrent findings of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Omalur (S.C.No.287 of 2016, dated 23.10.2019) and the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem (Crl.A.No.226 of 2019, dated 26.06.2020) convicting the petitioner under Section 452 IPC and Section 394 r/w. 397 IPC for pulling a gold thali chain and inflicting koduval cut injuries on the defacto complainant (Crime No.235 of 2013, Omalur Police Station). Held: conviction unsustainable - no test identification parade was held and the petitioner was identified for the first time in the dock almost four years after the occurrence; the Accident Registers record the assailant as an unknown person; the defacto complainant's husband who signed the complaint and the Duty Doctor who certified fitness were not examined without explanation; PW2's earlier police statement was silent on seeing the accused flee and PW5 turned hostile; arrest, confession and recovery doubtful owing to contradictions between PW6 and PW7; recovery effected near the house of the petitioner's sister who was not a witness to the seizure mahazar (Ex.P5); case properties reached court only on 17.02.2014 (Ex.P11) without explanation for the delay. Petitioner, having no bad antecedents, acquitted of all charges; bail bond cancelled; fine, if paid, to be refunded. Decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner: Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976 Cri.L.J. 1736); George v. State of Kerala (1998 Cri.L.J. 2034); Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala ((2004) 9 SCC 193).