Murugan v. State by Inspector of Police G3 Kilpauk Police Station Chennai-10

Bail SlipThat the Appellants/Accused namely, Murugan, Siva @ Deva3.Jayaseelan @ Jayaselvam and 4.Sasi @ Sasikumar were directed tobe released on bail by order of this Court dated 28.10.2002 inCrl.MP.No.10978/02 in CA 1491/02IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.11.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.A.No.1491/20021.Murugan2.Siva @ Deva3.Jayaseelan @ Jayaselvam4.Sasi @ SasikumarAppellants VsState by Inspector of Police G3 Kilpauk Police Station Chennai-10RespondentPrayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated03.10.2002 passed in SC.No.289/2001 by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai convicting and sentencing the eachof the appellants for the offence under Section 341 of IPC to undergo 15 days of Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence underSection 332 of IPC to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and forthe offence under Section 336 of IPC to undergo one month RigorousImprisonment and for the offence under Section 3(1) of the TamilNadu Public Properties Prevention of Damages Act to undergo oneyear Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to runconcurrently.For Appellant :Mr.K.SelvakumaraswamiFor Respondent :Mr.S.Senthilmurugan, GAORDER This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated03.10.2002 passed in SC.No.289/2001 by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai convicting and sentencing the each https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the appellants/A1 to A4 herein for the offence under Section 341of IPC to under go 15 days of Rigorous Imprisonment and for theoffence under Section 332 of IPC to undergo 1 year RigorousImprisonment and for the offence under Section 336 of IPC toundergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Properties Prevention ofDamages Act to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and orderingthe sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-a. PW.1, the complainant Sub Inspector of Police attachedto G3 Kilpauk Police Station, on receipt of information that therewas fire in the hutment in Osankulam, V.P.singh Nagar, Chetpet on15.4.2000 at 3.45 p.m. went to the place of occurrence with PW.3Packiasamy, and PW.4, who are the Head Constables attached to thesaid Police Station. The fire fighting vehicles also came to thespot. At that time, the Appellants/A1 to A4 thrown stones andsticks at the firemen and their fire fighting vehicles and also atthe police personnel. PW.2 R.C.Venugopal, Additional Superintendentof Police, CBCID was injured due to the stone pelted on him by A1.A1 to A4 damaged the front glass and head light of the firefighting vehicles. b. When the police personnel warned them, A1 to A4 shoutedat them saying that the police should be thrown in fire and againstarted pelting stones and threw sticks at them. PW.2 alsosustained injuries on his right side forehead. The injured personsPW.2 and other firemen were sent to the Hospital for treatment andthen PW.1 gave a complaint. PW.15, the Inspector of Police, G3Police Station on receipt of the complaint Ex.P1 registered FIREx.P6 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 336, 427,324 and 307 of IPC read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of theTNPPPDL Act and then rushed to the spot and prepared observationmahazar Ex.P7 and Sketch Ex.P8 in the presence of the witness andseized the material objects viz. stones and broken glass piecesMos.1 and 2 under a seizure mahazar Ex.P9 and recorded thestatements of the witnesses and also that of PW.2 at the Hospital.PW.15 also recorded the statement of PW.14 Doctor and receivedopinion Ex.P4 from PW.14 and the accident register Ex.P5 and thenrecorded the statement of Pws.6 to 9 firemen to speak about theoccurrence and the damage caused to the fire fighting vehicles andarrested the A1 to A4/ Appellants herein and received a certificateof damage Ex.P3 and Ex.P10 Form-95 was sent along with the finalreport to the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.3. The case was taken on file in CC.No.2507/2001 on thefile of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Since theoffence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is triable bythe Court of Sessions, the learned II Metropolitan Magistratecommitted the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, whotransferred the case to III Additional Sessions Judge and at thestage of trial, the case was transferred to the learnedAdditional Sub Judge (FTC-V) Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiatethe charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examinedas many as 15 witnesses and also relied on Exs.P1 to P10 and 2Material Objects. 5. On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC asto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totallyfalse.6. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced oneither side and looking into the materials available, found theaccused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred toabove, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.7. This court heard the submissions of the learned counselon either side and also perused the material records placed.8. PW.1 is the complainant. According to the Prosecution,Pws.1 to 5, who are all the police personnel and PW.6 to 8, who arefiremen had sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. PW.1'sevidence indicates that only A1 to A4 indulged in pelting of stonesagainst the firemen and the police personnel, who were engaged inextinguishing the fire and one of such stone pelted hit theforehead of PW.2, who sustained injury on his forehead. Heidentified all the four accused in the court for the first time, asthere was no identification parade to identify the persons whopelted stones and sticks against the police personnel.9. It is not the case of the Prosecution that the accusedwere already known to the Police. They were neither notoriouspersons nor indulged in any such activities or have any criminalantecedents which makes them know to the local police. In theabsence of any material to show that they were known to the policepersonnel prior to the occurrence, identifying the accused to theinvestigating officer or in the court would not positivelyestablish that it is the accused, who had pelted stones and causedinjuries on PW.2. 10. In this context, it is relevant to point out to thestatement made by PW.2 to Pw.14 Dr.Raman attached to the ApolloHospital that some one had thrown the stone which caused injury onhim. PW.2 would state in his evidence that a violent mob gatheredat the spot and started throwing stones and sticks on the policepersonnel and he would also state that from the said mob, a stonewas thrown at him, but he would say that he identified the accusedin the mob and came to know their names later. It is pertinent topoint out that he has not given the identifying features of theaccused persons in the complaint or before the investigatingofficer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. The testimony of PW.3, 4 and 5 would falsify the caseof the Prosecution that it is the accused who caused injury to PW.2and also caused damaged to the fire fighting vehicles. PW.3'sevidence reads thus:-@milahsk; bjhpahJ 4 egh;fs; me;j tz;oapd; cs;ns tutlhky; jLj;jhh;fs;/PW.4 would state thus:-@epiwa ngh; fy;yhy; moj;jhh;fs;/ mjpy; M$h; vjphpfs; ,Ue;jth;fs;/ PW.4 in his cross examination he has said thus:-@rk;gtk; ele;j ,lj;jpy; jfuhW ele;jnghJ bghJkf;fs; Rkhh; 500ngh; ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ jPmizg;g[ tz;o fhykhkjkhf te;jjhy; jfuhW bra;jhh;fs;/@Pw.5's evidence reveals thus:-@vjphpfs; kw;Wk; m';fpUe;jth;fs; v';fs; kPJ fy; vwpe;jdh;/ cjtp Mizahsh; kPJfy;nky; gl;L bew;wpapy; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; fhak; Vw;gl;lJ/12. Even as per the evidence of Pws.3 to PW.5, the publicwho gathered at the spot threw stones at the police personnel andthe accused were also present in the said mob. Contrary to theProsecution's case, PW.6 to PW.7 the firemen have categoricallydeposed that the accused were not in the crowd. Quite surprisinglythey were not treated hostile by the Prosecution. Their evidencecannot be discarded, as they have spoken to the other facts such aspelting of stones by the crowd on the police and fire servicepersonnel and also causing damage to the vehicle.13. There are several factors which as rightly pointed outby the learned counsel for the Appellants corrode the credibilityof the Prosecution's version. More importantly immediately afterthe incident, PW.2 has stated to the Doctor that some one hadthrown a stone at him and later while he was examined by theinvestigating officer, he has pointed out to the accused to havepelted stone at him. It is not explained as to how and why PW.2the Sub Inspector of Police did not tell the Doctor that theidentity was known.14. In view of the discrepancies and contradictions notedabove in the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses, it is not safeto place reliance upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 5. The court belowfailed to advert to the above material aspects and the analysis ofthe evidence by the court below was not proper.15. In view of the reasons stated above, the conviction andsentence imposed on the Appellants are liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Theconviction and sentence imposed on by the Appellants by judgementdated 03.10.2002 SC.No.289/2001 by the court below are set asideand the Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled againstthem. The bail bond if any executed by the appellants shall standterminated.Srcm Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court V) Chennai.2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.3. The Inspector of Police, G-3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.A.No.1491/2002SGL(CO)EU 20.11.2009.