Ravi @ Ravindran v. State

BAIL SLIPSThe Appellants/Accused 2 and 3 viz.,(1)N.Seenu@ Srinivasan and (2)Santhoshkumar were directed to be released on bail as per order of thiscourt dated 08.10.2007 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1/07 in Crl.A.No.696/2007on the file of this court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16-12-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANCRL.A.No.696 of 20071.Ravi @ Ravindran 2.N.Seenu @ Srinivasan3.Santhoshkumar.. Appellants/Accused Vs.State by: Inspector of PolicePallikarani Police StationCr.No.1032 of 2005.. Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure against the judgment of the Additional District and SessionsJudge (Fast Track Court No.I), Chengelput, in S.C.No.216 of 2006 dated12.6.2007.For Appellants: Mr.N.BhaskaranFor Respondent: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional SessionsDivision, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, made in S.C.No.216 of2006 whereby the appellants three in number, stood charged under Sec.302read with 34 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awardedlife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal couldbe stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is a resident of Chitlapakkam within the jurisdiction ofthe respondent police station. The deceased Govindan was not only knownto P.W.1, but also a friend. The appellants/accused also belonged to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same place, and they were all known to P.W.

P.W.7 is the wife ofthe deceased, while P.W.2 is the brother-in-law. On the date ofoccurrence namely 21.8.2005, that was Sunday, there was a festiveoccasion in the temple. For the cooking process, the deceased andP.Ws.3 and 4 were engaged. At about 10.00 P.M., they were all talkingto each other. Thereafter, they informed to P.W.1 that they were toproceed to Jaya Nagar to see a plot. Then, all of them left. Sometimelater, P.Ws.2 and 3 along with P.W.4 returned. P.W.2 who is thebrother-in-law of the deceased, again went over there to bring thedeceased. At that time, P.W.1 went over to the tank area to attend thenature's call. Sometime later, he heard the distressing cry, and P.W.1asked P.W.2 what happened. P.W.2 informed that there was a quarrelbetween the deceased and the accused in respect of Rs.200/- which wasgiven towards wages. Thereafter, P.W.2 returned. Within a short spanof time, the occurrence has taken place.

The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary chargewas framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecutionexamined 11 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 10 materialobjects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness wasexamined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took theview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubtand hence found them guilty and awarded the punishment referred toabove. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants before this Court.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learnedCounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had nodirect evidence to offer; that it was P.W.1 who has given the complaint; but, he has turned hostile; that under the circumstances, the contentsin the report, Ex.P1, were not proved; that P.Ws.3 and 4 have beenexamined, in order to speak about the last seen theory; that P.Ws.2 to 4have not seen the occurrence at all; that according to P.W.2, all thethree accused actually went along with the deceased together on thatnight, but he saw the dead body of Govindan in the next morning; that insuch a situation, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied at all; thatadded circumstance is that P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased; and that if his evidence is carefully scrutinized, it cannot beaccepted.

The learned Counsel would further add that it is true that M.Os.6and 7 have been recovered from A-1 on his confession alleged to havebeen recorded; but, these material objects when subjected to chemicalanalysis, did not contain the blood group since it is inconclusive andthus, the scientific evidence was also not in favour of the prosecution.

Added further the learned Counsel that the recovery of M.Os.6 and7 as urged by the prosecution, is nothing but a cooked up affair inorder to strengthen the prosecution case, if possible, but in vain; thatit is a case where the prosecution had not only been lacking inevidence, but also no evidence at all, and under the circumstances, they are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on allthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.

It is not in controversy that one Govindan, the husband of P.W.7,died pursuant to the attack made on him. Following the inquest made bythe Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.8,the Medical Person, who has given his categorical opinion in Ex.P2, thepostmortem certificate, that the deceased died out of head injuries. The fact that Govindan died due to homicidal violence was never disputedby the appellants. Under the circumstances, no impediment is felt bythe Court in recording so.

In order to substantiate the charge levelled against theappellants, it is true that the prosecution had no direct evidence tooffer, but it rested its entire case on the circumstantial evidence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset, made a cautionthat in a given case like this, where the prosecution rested the caseentirely on the circumstantial evidence, it must place and prove all thenecessary circumstances forming a chain without a snap and also pointingto the hypothesis that except the accused, no one could have committedthe offence. This Court is not unmindful of the settled principles oflaw. In the instant case, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have been examined in thisregard. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law; but, on that ground alone hisevidence cannot be rejected. According to P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, they allwent for cooking process along with A-1 to A-3, and on the date ofoccurrence that was on 21.8.2005 during night hours, P.Ws.3 and 4 sawall the other persons namely P.W.2, the deceased and A-1 to A-3 movingtowards the tank area, and after sometime, P.W.2 alone returned leavingall the three accused along with the deceased. The evidence wouldfurther go to show that P.W.2 was questioned by P.Ws.3 and 4 about theaccused, and P.W.2 in turn replied that they have all gone for seeing aplot at Jaya Nagar. P.W.2 has categorically stated that he accompaniedthe deceased and A-1 to A-3, and after attending the nature's call, there was a quarrel among them, and at that time, he questioned aboutthe quarrel, and the accused persons replied that they were demandingthe share in the wages, and at that time, the deceased told that hewould be coming back, and P.W.2 can go early, and accordingly, P.W.2returned. Thus, it would be quite clear from the evidence of P.W.2 thatnearby the place where the occurrence has taken place, he left thedeceased Govindan along with the three accused, and thereafter, in thenext morning, the dead body was found, and thus, the last seen theorywhat is brought forth through the evidence of P.W.2, in the consideredopinion of the Court, would be pointing that except the accused no onecould have committed the offence.

Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that theevidence of P.W.2 despite the cross-examination in full remainedunshaken. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for theappellants that P.W.2 was a relative of the deceased by itself cannot bea reason to discard the testimony. Despite the exercise of the test ofcareful scrutiny, this Court is satisfied that the evidence of P.W.2could be accepted since it is natural.

Further, the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Courtthat P.W.1 has turned hostile, and under the circumstances, the contentsof the report, Ex.P1, have not been proved. It is true that P.W.1 hasturned hostile; but, the FIR was available to the prosecution to theextent of setting the criminal law in motion. As far as the evidencewas concerned, it was P.Ws.3 and 4 who saw all the other persons and itwas P.W.2 who found all the three accused along with the deceasedGovindan at the place where the occurrence has taken place and alsoduring night hours.

Added circumstance was the recovery of M.Os.6 and 7, the knifeand bloodstained shirt respectively, from A-1 pursuant to theconfessional statement made by him. The evidence of the witness namelyP.W.9, examined by the prosecution as to the arrest, confession andrecovery of those material objects, remained unshaken. Under thecircumstances, all would be pointing to the guilt of A-1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In the instant case, a charge has been framed by the trial Courtthat it was A-1 who stabbed the deceased to death, while A-2 and A-3facilitated the crime. It remains to be stated that the recovery of theweapon of crime and also the bloodstained shirt worn by him, has beenmade from A-1. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the consideredopinion that the prosecution was successful enough in bringing home theguilt of A-1 since the overt acts are attributed to him. As far as A-2and A-3 are concerned, according to the prosecution, they havefacilitated the crime. Even as per the charge, it was A-1 who stabbedhim to death. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view thatA-1 has got to be found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC for the charge ofmurder, and the sentence imposed by the trial Court does not require anydisturbance.

Accordingly, the conviction of A-1 under Sec.302 read with 34 ofIPC is set aside, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.302 of IPC. Thepunishment of life imprisonment along with fine and default sentenceawarded by the trial Court, is confirmed.

As regards A-2 and A-3, no direct or indirect evidence that theyfacilitated the crime is available. Under the circumstances, they areentitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the conviction and the consequentsentence imposed by the trial Court on A-2 and A-3 are set aside, andthey are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The fine amountpaid by them will be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by themshall stand terminated.