Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 606 (MAD)

Ramesh v. State by The Inspector of Police

2016-02-16

M.JAICHANDREN, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.VII, Coimbatore at Tirupur. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. By judgment dated 30.04.2012, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 404 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (2.1) The deceased in this case was one Geysar @ Kishore. He hailed from Bihar State. On 10.10.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused was walking on the road at Anna Nagar. When he was coming in front of a shop known as ''Andavar Agencies'', the deceased, who was not previously known to the accused, came in a motor cycle in drunken state and dashed the motor cycle against the accused. The accused questioned him. The deceased started scolding the accused in filthy language. Provoked by the same, it is alleged that the accused gave a slap on his cheek. The deceased fell into the nearby drainage. Then, the deceased came out of the drainage and again scolded him. It is alleged that the accused took out a stone and hit him on his head. The deceased sustained injury on his head and fell down. The accused, then, took the Cell Phone which was in the pocket of the deceased and Rs.400/-, abandoned the deceased there itself and ran to his house. The deceased died of the head injury. (2.2.) The dead body was found on 11.10.2010 at 6.00 a.m. in the drainage. P.W.1 noticed the same and raised alarm which attracted a huge crowd of people there. Somebody from the crowd told that the deceased was a Bihari and he was working as a contract labour in the Vivekananda Garments. Then, P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint. P.W.1 noticed the same and raised alarm which attracted a huge crowd of people there. Somebody from the crowd told that the deceased was a Bihari and he was working as a contract labour in the Vivekananda Garments. Then, P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint. (2.3.) P.W.8 the then Sub-Inspector of Police of Perumanallur Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1605 of 2010 under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. (2.4.) P.W.10 took up the case for investigation. He prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of the witnesses. At his request, P.W.6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 12.10.2010 at 02.10 p.m. He found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased : ''External Injuries: 1. Laceration 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x = c.m. near left eye untidy. 2. Laceration 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. near the left ear and left pinna crushed. 3. Laceration 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x = c.m. over left side of forehead untidy. 4. Contusion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over forehead right side. 5. Contusion 1 x 1 c.m. over the neck. 6. Laceration 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x = c.m. over left side occipital region-untidy. 7. Cranial Value injured and collapsed left side. Ears : Bleeding from both ears (closed). Ribs intact. Heart - 300 gram Empty. Lungs right 450 gram and left 400 gram - pale - Kidney - Each 150 gram pale. Head : Multiple injury over cranial valve left side and right temporal region. Brain : 1400 gram - congested - multiple laceration and Blood Clots. Viscera. Blood sucrose present. Sent for chemical analysis.'' Ex.P.4 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to him, the injuries found on the deceased would have been caused by a stone like M.O.1. M.O.1 was recovered from the place of occurrence by P.W.10. (2.5.) When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that the accused appeared before P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer on 16.11.2010 at 09.00 a.m. and made a voluntary confession. P.W.7 reduced the same into writing. Then, along with the report under Ex.P.5, he produced the accused to P.W.10. M.O.1 was recovered from the place of occurrence by P.W.10. (2.5.) When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that the accused appeared before P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer on 16.11.2010 at 09.00 a.m. and made a voluntary confession. P.W.7 reduced the same into writing. Then, along with the report under Ex.P.5, he produced the accused to P.W.10. When P.W.10 interrogated the accused, he gave a voluntary statement in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the Cell Phone. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to his house and produced M.O.2 Cell Phone. The same was recovered under Ex.P.6 Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 9 documents and 2 material objects were also marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the fact that on 11.10.2010 at 9.00 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found in the drainage and at that time, there were injuries on the body of the deceased. P.W.3 has spoken about the fact that the deceased was using the Cell Phone. P.W.4 has stated that on 11.10.2010, he found the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence. He has also spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 and the seizure of M.O.1 stone under Ex.P.3 Mahazar from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has stated that on 10.10.2010 at 10.30 p.m. in front of Andavar Electrical Shop, two persons were quarelling. He has identified the accused as one of the said persons. P.W.6 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.7- the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused. P.W.8 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.9 has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence and handed over the same for postmortem. P.W.10 has stated about the investigation done and the final report filed by him. 5. P.W.8 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.9 has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence and handed over the same for postmortem. P.W.10 has stated about the investigation done and the final report filed by him. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side. 6. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 8. There is no denial of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found on 11.10.2010 at 9.00 a.m. in the drainage with injuries. According to the medical evidence, the death was due to the injuries found on the head. The medical evidence further reveals that the said injuries would have been caused by a stone like M.O.1 which was lying by the side of the dead body of the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the deceased had been done to death by some one on the previous night. 9. Now the question is as to who was the perpetrator of the crime. The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7 to prove the same. P.W.5 has stated that on 10.10.2009 at 10.30 a.m., in front of Andavar Electrical Shop, two persons were quarreling with each other and then, P.W.5 left the place immediately. Though, he has identified the accused as the one who quarreled with the other, the other person has not been identified. There is no evidence that the other person was the deceased. Further, the accused was not previously known to P.W.5. In the absence of any Test Identification Parade, it is too difficult to believe the identification made by him in the court for the first time. Thus, the evidence of P.W.5 does not help the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of the accused. 10. Then comes the evidence of P.W.7. In the absence of any Test Identification Parade, it is too difficult to believe the identification made by him in the court for the first time. Thus, the evidence of P.W.5 does not help the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of the accused. 10. Then comes the evidence of P.W.7. He is the Village Administrative Officer to whom it is stated that the accused gave a voluntary confession. P.W.7 is a stranger to the accused. It is too difficult to believe that the accused would have chosen a total stranger to confess. There are no reasons to lose confidence in P.W.7. P.W.3, during cross examination, has stated that on 12.10.2010 itself, the accused was present in the police station, when P.W.3 was examined by the police. This would only go to show that the accused was in the custody of the police from 12.10.2010 onwards. This also creates doubt in the veracity of P.W.7. For these reasons, we reject the evidence of P.W.7. 11. Then comes the recovery of M.O.2 Cell Phone on the disclosure statement made by the accused. Since we have disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested only on 16.11.2010 as he was found in the company of the police from 12.10.2010 onwards, we find it difficult to believe that the accused gave such a voluntary disclosure statement out of which M.O.2 Cell Phone was recovered on 16.11.2010. Further, there is no evidence that M.O.2 belonged to the deceased. For these reasons, the recovery of M.O.2 also loses its significance. 12. At any rate, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is expected to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain, without any break so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to do so. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence made by the trial court on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence made by the trial court on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to the accused.