Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Mani alias Elumalai was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (i) I.P.C. on 3 counts. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: " (a) The deceased Balasubramanian was an Advocate practising at Gingee. There was a land dispute between the accused Mani and one Raji, P.W.6. The deceased Balasubramanian being a relative of P.W.6 appeared for him in all the proceedings. To resolve the dispute between these persons, there was a panchayat convened on 17.5.1998. The decision of the panchayat was not accepted by the accused. There was a quarrel in the panchayat itself. Therefore, the accused lodged a complaint, Ex.P.7 against the deceased, Balasubramanian and P.W.6 Raji and other persons before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. Apart from this case, yet another case was registered by the police against both accused and P.W.6 for the offence under Section 160 I.P.C. The deceased, the advocate filed a bail application and obtained bail for P.W.6. Since the deceased Advocate supported the cause of P.W.6, the accused had a grudge against the deceased. (b) The occurrence had taken place on 11.6.1998. On that date at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased Balasubramanian was sitting along with other Advocates in the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was also sitting there. They were all waiting for the Judicial Magistrate to come to the dais. The accused suddenly entered into the Court hall from western side and started to attack the deceased with Koduval, M.O.1, inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased Balasubramanian. The deceased fell down from the chair and became unconscious. When P.W.1, an advocate P.W.2, Head Constable, P.W.3 another advocate and P.W.4, Assistant Public Prosecutor went near him, the accused threatened them with the Koduval, M.O.1 and ran to the dais and hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate. Then, all of them climbed to the dais and caught hold of the accused. P.W.2 Head Constable snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused. While doing so, P.W.2 sustained injuries on his hand. (c) The victim, advocate was immediately taken to Gingee Hospital for treatment. P.W.11, Doctor provided first aid and referred the deceased to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry as the condition of the deceased was so serious. The accident register is Ex.P.9. P.W.2 Head Constable snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused. While doing so, P.W.2 sustained injuries on his hand. (c) The victim, advocate was immediately taken to Gingee Hospital for treatment. P.W.11, Doctor provided first aid and referred the deceased to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry as the condition of the deceased was so serious. The accident register is Ex.P.9. He treated P.W.2, Head Constable and issued Wound Certificate, Ex.P.10. (d) In the meantime, P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. He registered the case under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared First Information Report, Ex.P.13 and recovered M.O.1 Koduval and arrested the accused. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. He also recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth. In the meantime, the victim died at JIPMER Hospital. On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police altered the offence into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent Express Report, Ex.P.15. (e) P.W.16, Inspector of Police came to the JIPMER hospital and conducted inquest on 12.6.1998. Ex.P.16 is the Inquest Report. He examined the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and others. Then he sent the dead body for post-mortem. (f) P.W.13, the Doctor conducted post-mortem on 12.6.1998 at 12.15 p.m. and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.12. He found three cut injuries on the head of the deceased and gave an opinion that the death would have caused due to the injuries on the head. (g) P.W.16 continued the investigation by recording statements of the witnesses. He sent requisition to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused, under Sections 449, 302 and 506 (1) I.P.C. " 3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case had been foisted against him. 5. The trial Court accepting the prosecution case convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (i) (3 counts) I.P.C. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal. 6. 5. The trial Court accepting the prosecution case convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (i) (3 counts) I.P.C. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal. 6. Mr.Victor, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the entire evidence and would contend that the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the case is not cogent and reliable and as such, the conviction imposed upon the appellant is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting is correct and therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and gone through the records. 9. According to prosecution, the occurrence had taken place inside the Court hall on 11.6.1998 at about 10.15 a.m. in the presence of the advocates, the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Police Constables. P.W.1, the first informant is a practising advocate in the said Court. P.W.2 is the Head Constable who snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused who hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate after the attack. P.W.3 is another Advocate practising in the same Court. P.W.4 is the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the said Court. All of them saw the occurrence. 10. The evidence of the above witnesses corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W.11 and P.W.13, Doctors, would clearly show that the occurrence had occurred inside the Court Hall in the manner alleged by the prosecution. P.W.2 Head Constable, who caught hold of the accused who hid himself beneath the table of the Magistrate sustained injuries while snatching the Koduval from him. P.W.11, Doctor has treated P.W.2 for the injuries sustained by him. 11. Though it is contended that the evidence of these witnesses is not reliable, there is no reason given by the learned counsel for the appellant to reject their evidence which is so natural. As a matter of fact, the witnesses who are the advocates, the Head Constable and the Assistant Public Prosecutor have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, the complaint given by P.W.1, the advocate had been endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate himself. 12. As a matter of fact, the witnesses who are the advocates, the Head Constable and the Assistant Public Prosecutor have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, the complaint given by P.W.1, the advocate had been endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate himself. 12. It is unfortunate to notice that the accused came to the Court Hall with a plan to murder the deceased in advocate robes at about 10.15 a.m. and mercilessly made a brutal attack with aruval in the presence of the advocates and the police probably thinking that the Court premises would be the safest place to execute his evil design. This, further shows that he came to the Court with the clear intention to commit murder of the deceased advocate, unmindful of the ensuing consequences. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified. 13. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. CDJLawJournal Print view CDJ 2003 MHC 798 Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras Case No : C.A.No. 777 of 1999 Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJAN Parties : Mani @ Elumalai Versus State, represented by Inspector of Police Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mr. S.E. Victor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. E.Raja, A.P.P. Date of Judgment : 27-01-2003 Head Note :- Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 -Appreciation of Evidence - Though it is contended that the evidence of these witnesses is not reliable, there is no reason given by the learned counsel for the appellant to reject their evidence which is so natural. As a matter of fact, the witnesses who are the advocates, the Head Constable and the Assistant Public Prosecutor have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, the complaint given by P.W.1, the advocate had been endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate himself. It is unfortunate to notice that the accused came to the Court Hall with a plan to murder the deceased in advocate robes at about 10.15 a.m. and mercilessly made a brutal attack with aruval in the presence of the advocates and the police probably thinking that the Court premises would be the safest place to execute his evil design. It is unfortunate to notice that the accused came to the Court Hall with a plan to murder the deceased in advocate robes at about 10.15 a.m. and mercilessly made a brutal attack with aruval in the presence of the advocates and the police probably thinking that the Court premises would be the safest place to execute his evil design. This, further shows that he came to the Court with the clear intention to commit murder of the deceased advocate, unmindful of the ensuing consequences. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified. Para 11 & 12 INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 160 ; Section 302 ; Section 307 ; Section 392 ; Section 449 ; Section 506(1) ; Section 506(3 ; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Section 313 Comparative Citation: 2003 (109) CRLJ 2262 MAD Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Mani alias Elumalai was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (i) I.P.C. on 3 counts. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: " (a) The deceased Balasubramanian was an Advocate practising at Gingee. There was a land dispute between the accused Mani and one Raji, P.W.6. The deceased Balasubramanian being a relative of P.W.6 appeared for him in all the proceedings. To resolve the dispute between these persons, there was a panchayat convened on 17.5.1998. The decision of the panchayat was not accepted by the accused. There was a quarrel in the panchayat itself. Therefore, the accused lodged a complaint, Ex.P.7 against the deceased, Balasubramanian and P.W.6 Raji and other persons before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. Apart from this case, yet another case was registered by the police against both accused and P.W.6 for the offence under Section 160 I.P.C. The deceased, the advocate filed a bail application and obtained bail for P.W.6. Since the deceased Advocate supported the cause of P.W.6, the accused had a grudge against the deceased. (b) The occurrence had taken place on 11.6.1998. On that date at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased Balasubramanian was sitting along with other Advocates in the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was also sitting there. They were all waiting for the Judicial Magistrate to come to the dais. (b) The occurrence had taken place on 11.6.1998. On that date at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased Balasubramanian was sitting along with other Advocates in the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was also sitting there. They were all waiting for the Judicial Magistrate to come to the dais. The accused suddenly entered into the Court hall from western side and started to attack the deceased with Koduval, M.O.1, inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased Balasubramanian. The deceased fell down from the chair and became unconscious. When P.W.1, an advocate P.W.2, Head Constable, P.W.3 another advocate and P.W.4, Assistant Public Prosecutor went near him, the accused threatened them with the Koduval, M.O.1 and ran to the dais and hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate. Then, all of them climbed to the dais and caught hold of the accused. P.W.2 Head Constable snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused. While doing so, P.W.2 sustained injuries on his hand. (c) The victim, advocate was immediately taken to Gingee Hospital for treatment. P.W.11, Doctor provided first aid and referred the deceased to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry as the condition of the deceased was so serious. The accident register is Ex.P.9. He treated P.W.2, Head Constable and issued Wound Certificate, Ex.P.10. (d) In the meantime, P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. He registered the case under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared First Information Report, Ex.P.13 and recovered M.O.1 Koduval and arrested the accused. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. He also recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth. In the meantime, the victim died at JIPMER Hospital. On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police altered the offence into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent Express Report, Ex.P.15. (e) P.W.16, Inspector of Police came to the JIPMER hospital and conducted inquest on 12.6.1998. Ex.P.16 is the Inquest Report. He examined the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and others. Then he sent the dead body for post-mortem. (f) P.W.13, the Doctor conducted post-mortem on 12.6.1998 at 12.15 p.m. and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.12. He found three cut injuries on the head of the deceased and gave an opinion that the death would have caused due to the injuries on the head. (g) P.W.16 continued the investigation by recording statements of the witnesses. (f) P.W.13, the Doctor conducted post-mortem on 12.6.1998 at 12.15 p.m. and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.12. He found three cut injuries on the head of the deceased and gave an opinion that the death would have caused due to the injuries on the head. (g) P.W.16 continued the investigation by recording statements of the witnesses. He sent requisition to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused, under Sections 449, 302 and 506 (1) I.P.C. " 3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case had been foisted against him. 5. The trial Court accepting the prosecution case convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 (i) (3 counts) I.P.C. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal. 6. Mr.Victor, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the entire evidence and would contend that the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the case is not cogent and reliable and as such, the conviction imposed upon the appellant is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting is correct and therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and gone through the records. 9. According to prosecution, the occurrence had taken place inside the Court hall on 11.6.1998 at about 10.15 a.m. in the presence of the advocates, the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Police Constables. P.W.1, the first informant is a practising advocate in the said Court. P.W.2 is the Head Constable who snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused who hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate after the attack. P.W.3 is another Advocate practising in the same Court. P.W.4 is the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the said Court. All of them saw the occurrence. 10. P.W.2 is the Head Constable who snatched the Koduval, M.O.1 from the accused who hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate after the attack. P.W.3 is another Advocate practising in the same Court. P.W.4 is the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the said Court. All of them saw the occurrence. 10. The evidence of the above witnesses corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W.11 and P.W.13, Doctors, would clearly show that the occurrence had occurred inside the Court Hall in the manner alleged by the prosecution. P.W.2 Head Constable, who caught hold of the accused who hid himself beneath the table of the Magistrate sustained injuries while snatching the Koduval from him. P.W.11, Doctor has treated P.W.2 for the injuries sustained by him. 11. Though it is contended that the evidence of these witnesses is not reliable, there is no reason given by the learned counsel for the appellant to reject their evidence which is so natural. As a matter of fact, the witnesses who are the advocates, the Head Constable and the Assistant Public Prosecutor have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, the complaint given by P.W.1, the advocate had been endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate himself. 12. It is unfortunate to notice that the accused came to the Court Hall with a plan to murder the deceased in advocate robes at about 10.15 a.m. and mercilessly made a brutal attack with aruval in the presence of the advocates and the police probably thinking that the Court premises would be the safest place to execute his evil design. This, further shows that he came to the Court with the clear intention to commit murder of the deceased advocate, unmindful of the ensuing consequences. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified. 13. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.