TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the residents of the same hamlet situated in the aforesaid village. The residents of that hamlet had a nearby place as open air latrine which was situated near a water body. (b) The deceased Ramaiah, in this case, was the son-in-law of Ramaiah (PW-1), who also had the same name as that of the deceased. Parvathi-daughter of PW-1, was married to the deceased-Ramaiah. 25 days prior to the incident, when she was staying at the residence of PW-1, the deceased-Ramaiah solicited the wife of Subbiah (A-2) to have illicit intercourse with him and A-2, after coming to know of such fact, harboured enmity in his heart against the deceased. The deceased was also having previous enmity with Mookkiah (A-1), who was residing in the same village. (c) On 12.05.1992, at about 5.30 a.m., when the deceased Ramaiah went to the said open air latrine to attend to the calls of the nature, A-1 and A-2, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Ramaiah, dealt blows on him using aruval (billhooks), thereby killed him on the spot itself and fled away from the scene. However, on the very same day, at about 05:30 hours, when Ramaiah (PW-1), the father-in-law of the deceased, Sudalaimuthu (PW-5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the Appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed. 7. In Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589, this Court held: 27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722) 8. In a recent decision in Murugesan and Ors. v. State Through Inspector of Police, 2012 (10) SCC 383, one of us Ranjan Gogoi, J. elaborately considered the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. (Emphasis supplied) 9. With the above principles, let us analyze the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the High Court in interfering with the order of acquittal and awarding imprisonment for life. 10. Among the materials placed and relied on by the prosecution, complaint Exh.P-1, evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 are relevant. Complaint (Exh.P-1): 11. The complaint Exh. P-1 dated 12.05.1992 was made by Ramaiah (PW-1). In the complaint, it was stated that as his daughter-Parvathi was pregnant, she was brought to his house for delivery and a female child was born to her 25 days back. After delivery, her daughter stayed in his house with her child and his son-in-law Ramaiah stayed with his parents. It was further stated that on 12.05.1992, in the early morning, about 05.30 hours, when he was returning alongwith Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam after pouring water to the plantation, at that time, they heard the shouting of his son-in-law Don't kill me . On hearing the same, they rushed towards the spot and noticed that Subbiah (A-2) was having a big aruval (bill hook) in his hand and Mookkia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Court to analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize the same with other corroborative evidence. The High Court has rightly relied on his evidence and we fully agree with the course adopted by the High Court in relying upon his evidence. Evidence of PW-4: 13. Though Shanmugam (PW-4) turned hostile at one stage, there is no reason to reject his entire evidence as unacceptable. It was he who accompanied PW-1 at the early hours and noticed that the accused were attacking the deceased by use of bill hooks. Similar to PW-1 and PW-5, PW-4 reiterated that he accompanied them after pouring water to their banana fields. Even though he did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthen the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. Evidence of PW-5: 14. Sudalaimuthu (PW-5) is a resident of Ulappadi Parai. In his evidence, he has stated that 6 years back, on Chithirai month night, at about 8.00 p.m., when he was proceeding to banana thope to pass water, he noticed Ramaiah (PW-1) and Shanmugam (PW-4) were also passing water. After completing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddle of right side of back to right side of shoulder of size 20X6X6 cms. Oblique in direction, overlapping cut injuries on inferior border of wound, muscles, blood vessels cut, blood clots present. Right scapula injured and dislocated. (4) An incised wound on right side of lower part of back below injury No. 3, oblique in direction 12X4X2 cms. Blood vessels, muscles cut and blood clots present. (5) An incised wound horizontal in direction 18X6X8 cms. Extending from left lower part of back of left waist fort side. (6) An incised wound above injury No. 5 oblique in direction on left side of lower part of back to right side crossing spine 12X6X4 cms. Blood vessels, muscles cut in the same direction. (7) An incised wound on upper third of upper arm right, on lateral side extending to back of 12 X 4 shoulder, oblique in direction, blood vessels, muscles cut. (8) An incised would on right upper arm, upper third on medical aspect, skin depth 5 X 2 cms. obliquely placed. 17. As rightly pointed out by the State counsel, the cut injuries observed by the doctor tally with the narration given by PW-1 in Exh.P-1 as well as in his evidence and the evidence of PW-5. The doctor a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he counsel for the Appellants with reference to existence of undigested particles n the post mortem by PW-2. Other objections: 18. Though an argument was advanced that there was delay in filing the FIR in the Court of the Magistrate, a perusal of the details placed by the prosecution show that the occurrence took place at 05.30 a.m. on 12.05.1992 and the FIR was registered on the same day at 08.00 hrs. and the Magistrate received the FIR on the same day at 02.00 p.m. As rightly observed by the High Court, it cannot be presumed that there was inordinate delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate Court. Further, it has come in evidence that Kallidaikurichi P.S. is situated at a distance which could be covered by cycle in 45 minutes and Abdul Rahman (PW-9), Police Constable Grade-I, who was attached with Kallidaikurichi P.S. at the relevant time has explained in his evidence that he took the complaint (Exh.P-1) and the FIR to the Magistrate Court and reached at around 10.00 or 10.15 a.m. but by that time Magistrate Court's sitting was commenced. PW-9 further explained that when he approached the Head Clerk, he informed PW-9 to hand it over to the Magistrate after the sitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
