Muruganandham v. State

BAIL SLIPThe Accused/Appellant is directed to be released on bail as per orderof this court dated 3/2/2006 made in Crl.MP.721/06 in Crl.A.102/06.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.02.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUCriminal Appeal No.102 of 2006Muruganandham : Appellant/Accused Vs.State: Represented byThe Inspector of Police Veppur Police Station VirudhachalamCuddalore DistrictCr.No.66 of 2001 : Respondent/ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposedin Judgment dated 20.12.2005 made in S.C.No.153 of 2005 on the fileof the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III,Vridhachalam. For Appellant : Mr. N. DamodharanFor Respondent: Mr.C. Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENTThe appeal is preferred against the conviction of the appellantunder Sections 341, 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.forone year under Section 326 I.P.C.; sentenced to undergo R.I. for one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ month under Section341 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for oneyear under Section 324 I.P.C. and further directed to paycompensation of Rs.15,000/- to P.W.2 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the detentionperiod of the appellant was ordered to be set off u/s.428 of Cr.P.C.Prosecution case in short is following:2. The injured is the sister of P.W.1. P.W.1 lodged complaintEx.P.1 with police stating that on 18.3.2001 he has come to thehouse of his sister P.W.2. There was a land dispute between P.W.2and one Muruganandam i.e., accused who is step brother of her husbandand hence bad blood existed between the two families. At about 12noon while P.W.2 was going to Cross Road along puraakuttai followedby P.W.1, the accused came with long knife, using filthy languageand cut her indiscriminately on various parts of her body. Further,the assault was stopped by the intervention of Ayyasamy, Arumugam,Billa@ Chellamuthu and others. On receipt of the complaint P.W.8Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P.6.He took up the matter for investigation and proceeded to the scene ofoccurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.8, two rough sketchesEx.P.7 series. He seized the knife with the length of 44 c.m. nearthe scene of crime and prepared Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.9 in thepresence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses and recorded theirstatements. On 19.3.2001 at about 5.00 a.m. he arrested the accusedand sent him for judicial custody. He placed the file for furtherinvestigation before the Inspector of Police.3. P.W.6 doctor attached to Vridhachalam Government Hospitalexamined P.W.2 and found the following injuries on her body1.A cut injury about 15cm x 3cm x 3cm over the left hand startingfrom the index finger to the wrist2.A cut wound about 10cm x 3cm over the base of the left thumb3.A cut wound about 6 cm x 4 cm over the left elbow4.A cut wound about 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm over the centre of the leftfore arm5.A cut wound about 10 cm x 2 cm x 3 cmd over the right arm nearelbow6.A cut wound about 4 cm x 2 cm over the left wrist7.A cut wound about 2 cm x 1 cm over the back side left She gave treatment to P.W.2 and issued Accident Register Ex.P.4 inwhich she opined that the 1st injury was grievous in nature and theother injuries were simple. P.W.2 was further treated by P.W.7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ doctor who gave case sheet Ex.P.5. P.W.9 Inspector of Policecompleted the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused.4.The accused was put on trial. In order to establish the case,the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9; marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. andM.O.1. After the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accusedwas questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to theincriminating circumstances for which he denied the complicity to theoffence. No witness was examined on the side of accused. Ex.D.1xerox copy of Accident Register of P.W.2 was marked on the defenceside. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record,convicted and handed down the sentences on the appellant/accused asstated above.5.Point for consideration:The point for consideration in this appeal is, "whether theprosecution has established the charges framed against the accusedbeyond all reasonable doubt?"Point:6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Damodaran wouldcontend that there is remarkable unexplained delay in reaching theF.I.R. to the Court, that various improbabilities are found in theprosecution case, that the medical evidence has not supported theevidence of P.W.1, that the recovery of the weapon has not beenestablished, that the description of the weapon also not properlystated by the witnesses that the charges have not been proved andthat the prosecution case is a bundle of so many discrepancies andimprobabilities and hence benefit of doubt may be extended to theappellant.7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.C. Balasubramanianwould submit that the alleged discrepancies are not true, when therecords are carefully perused, it could have seen that the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses are natural and that the charges havebeen proved beyond reasonable doubt.8. The occurrence took place at 12.00 noon on 18.3.2001 and thecomplaint was lodged at 12.15 p.m. on the day itself. But the F.I.R.was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate on 20.3.2001 at 1.30 p.m.There is a delay of over 2 days for F.I.R. to reach the Court.Concerned police officials have not assigned any reason for thedelay. The delay remains unexplained. It is fatal to theprosecution case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant thatthere is a contradiction in evidence with regard to the scene ofoccurrence. In the complaint Ex.P.1 it is stated that the occurrencetook place in the Cross Road through Puraakuttai. But in theAccident Register Ex.P.4 it is stated that the occurrence took placenear cinema theatre. The investigating officer has stated in hiscross examination that during the police enquiry P.W.1 has statedthat the occurrence took place in front of the house of Muthulakshmi.Ex.D.1 marked by the accused which is a copy of Accident Registerissued to P.W.2 in which it is stated as "behind cinema theatre nearabove address". "above address" refers to the address given by theinjured. Nowhere it is stated that the accident took place nearVeepur Perumal Koil Street. But the above location does not tallywith the occurrence place mentioned in the complaint. Even in therough sketch also there is no reference about the cinema theatre. Oneither side of the road, offices are there and the occurrence tookplace on the road. The above circumstances would show that theoccurrence place has not been properly identified by the prosecution. 10. P.W.2 says that she was assaulted by accused with Koduvalknife. But in Ex.P.1 complaint it is stated that she was assaultedby long knife. In Ex.P.4 Accident Register it is stated that she wasassaulted by "Veechu Aruval". In view of the above saiddiscrepancies, the prosecution has failed to prove by what weaponP.W.2 was assaulted.11. P.W.5 was examined to say about the recovery of knife. But heturned hostile to the prosecution. The mahazar witnesses have notbeen brought to box. Hence the recovery of knife has not beenproved. There is no reference when the weapon was seized and when itwas sent to chemical examination to find out the nature of blood.12. In the complaint it is stated that three persons came for therescue of P.W.2 from the assault. But among them one Ayyasamy andBilla alias Chellamuthu have been examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. Theyturned hostile to the prosecution. Hence the evidence of P.W.1 aloneavailable as to the occurrence. 13. The investigating officer has deposed that the knife wasproduced before the Court on 20.03.2001 but it was returned and thesame was resubmitted to the Court only on 2.1.2005. After four yearsthe weapon was resubmitted to the Court . This circumstance showsthat the Investigating Officer did not evince any interest forsending the weapon for serological examination. It is stated that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.2 had profuse bleeding after receiving the injuries. Hencenaturally the weapon which was used for assaulting should have beensent for serological examination. But, it was not done in this case.Hence, the prosecution has not taken steps to show the connectionbetween the accused and the weapon. It is also stated that themedical evidence does not support the version of P.W.2. She hasstated that she was cut by sharp edged koduval knife. But some ofthe injuries are not found as caused by the sharp edged knife. Inthis regard P.W.6 doctor would say that the injuries can be causedby falling on stones.14. P.W.7 doctor says that the cut injuries and laceratedinjuries found in the body of P.W.2 could have been caused bydifferent weapons. The above said circumstances would show that theprosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond allreasonable doubt. Very many doubts have arisen in this case and theaccused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The conviction andsentence imposed by the Court below has to be set aside and it isaccordingly set aside. I answer this point in the negative. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed acquitting theappellant of the charges framed against him. The disposal of thematerial object shall be in accordance with the directions of thetrial Court. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall standcancelled forthwith. The compensation awarded by the Court below, ifpaid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/TRUE COPY/Sub Assistant Registrar ggsTo1.The Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Vridhachalam. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Inspector of Police, Veppur Police Station,Virudhachalam.+1CC to M/s.N.Damodaran, Advocate in SR.12724/12 Judgment in: Crl. A.No.102 of 2006 NR(CO)KSA(09/07/2012)