{"id":10822,"date":"2002-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-06-06T00:24:17","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T18:54:17","slug":"muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nCrl.Appeal No.725 of 1997\n\n1. Muthu @ Durai Pandi\n   @ Muthulingam\n2. Esakkipandi\n3. Velu\n4. Masanam                    ..                  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState through Inspector of Police\nMeignanapuram Police Station\nTuticorin\nTuticorin District.           ..                 Respondents\n\n\nCriminal Appeal against the judgment dated 8.9.1997 made in S.C.No.19 of  1994\non the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.\n\n!For appellants         :       Mr.C.S.S.Pillai\n\n^For respondents :      Mr.Navaneethakrishnan\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S.SIRPURKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
This  appeal  is  at the instance of the four accused, three of whom have been
\nconvicted with the aid of Section 34,  I.P.C.,  while  the  fourth  accused  \u2013
\nMasanam,  has  been  convicted  for  an  offence punishable under Section 302,
\nI.P.C., simplicitor.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  This is a classic example of how our caste  system  has  permeated
\ninto the day-to-day life, giving rise to the dastardly crimes.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Meignanapuram  is  a  small  hamlet.    The  members  of  both the
\ncommunities, viz., Thevar community and Scheduled Caste community, live there.
\nWhile all the accused persons belong to the  Thevar  community,  the  deceased
\nSekar belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.  The incident was conceived on
\n17.5.1992 when  Sekar has called one Narayanan by his name.  Taking that to be
\na great insult, there was a panchayat held, and there was  also  a  compromise
\neffected at.  This was done on 1 8.5.1992.  However, it seems that the accused
\npersons did not brook this insult of being called by name by a Scheduled Caste
\nmember.  Therefore, the incident seems to have happened on 20th of May, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  prosecution  story  is  that  the deceased Sekar, along with
\nP.W.1, Sundar alias Rajeswaran and P.W.2 Chinnathambi, were coming  back  from
\nthe nearby coffee shop after taking coffee.  At that time, the accused persons
\nMuthu,  Esakki  Pandi and Velu Thevar, A1, A2 and A3 respectively, were going.
\nIt is at that time, the assault took place at the instance of  A4  –  Masanam,
\nwho, probably,  was  following these three accused persons.  Finding Sekar and
\nhis two associates, A4 –  Masanam  tried  to  assault  P.W.1  –  Sundar  alias
\nRajeswaran,  and  at  that  time,  that  assault  was  averted  because of the
\nintervention of Thavamani Thevar, and immediately, the assailant A4 – Masanam,
\nchanged his direction and gave aruval (billhook) blows and cut Sekar.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The case of the prosecution is that  when  Sekar  started  running
\naway  after  the initial assault, he was stopped by the accused A1, A2 and A3,
\nso that he becomes  available  for  further  assault  by  A4  –  Masanam,  and
\nthereafter,  A4  – Masanam further assaulted Sekar, who, probably, died on the
\nspot.  All these took place between 7.45 to 8.00 am.  Thereafter,  the  report
\nof  this  incident  was  made  by  P.W.1  \u2013 Sundar alias Rajeswaran and PW.2 –
\nChinnathambi in Authikadu, within the jurisdiction of Meignanapuram, the small
\nhamlet.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The Investigating Officer registered the case in the afternoon and
\nthen visited the spot immediately.  It  seems  that  the  inquest  report  was
\nprepared  somewhere  in  the  afternoon,  and the body was sent to post-mortem
\nimmediately at about 4 O\u2019 Clock.  The post-mortem  report  –  Ex.P7  suggested
\nthat  the  deceased had died due to the assault and hemorrhage, and because of
\nthe injuries in the vital parts, resulting in shock.  The accused persons came
\nto be arrested in another two days.   On  the  basis  of  the  report  of  the
\nInvestigating  Officer  after completion of investigation and filing of charge
\nsheet and after the committal proceedings were over, the matter was made  over
\nto the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Before  the Sessions Judge, the defence was that, in fact, due to
\nthe prevailing enmity between the two communities, the said Sekar was done  to
\ndeath  by  somebody and it was only due to suspicion, the accused persons were
\nroped in.  A further defence haltingly taken was that of the  private  enmity.
\nHowever,  the  defence  does  not  prevail  and the accused persons came to be
\nconvicted as under.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Before  the  Sessions  Court,  the   prosecution   examined   two
\neyewitnesses  P.W.1  and P.W.2 and the other two witnesses, they being P.W.3 –
\nSelvakumar and P.W.4 \u2013 John alias Thangadurai, in support of their case.    It
\nwas  also  pointed  out  by the prosecution that during the investigation, the
\nfourth accused had discovered the place where the aruval (billhook) was hidden
\nby him and that the aruval (billhook) was blood-stained.  It was  also  sought
\nto  be  proved  that there was a motive of previous enmity between the accused
\npersons and the deceased.  It was on this  basis  that  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge  thus came to the conclusion that the offence of murder punishable under
\nSection 302, I.P.C.  was proved as against  the  fourth  accused,  while,  the
\nother three accused, they being accused-1 to 3, shared the common intention to
\ncommit the  murder.   Feeling aggrieved by this verdict, the present appeal is
\nfiled before us.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The learned counsel took us through the evidence of eyewitnesses  as  also
\nthe  documentary  evidences,  such  as  the  port-mortem  report and the first
\ninformation report.  The whole thrust of arguments was  that  the  prosecution
\nhad  miserably  failed  to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the four accused
\npersons were perpetrators of the crime.  The learned counsel took  us  through
\nthe  evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to begin with, to suggest that in fact there was
\na caste background to the whole crime inasmuch  as  Sekar,  the  deceased  had
\ncalled Narayanan by his name and that was felt as an insult, because of which,
\nthere was  a panchayat held and the matters were actually solved.  The learned
\ncounsel tried to suggest that if the matters were  solved  in  the  panchayat,
\nthen  there  was  nothing  for  the accused again to assault the said deceased
\nand\/or his party.  Thus, the gravamen of the  contention  is  that  there  was
\nhardly  any motive available to the accused persons to commit the above crime.
\nThe question of motive has to be put behind, once there is a direct  testimony
\navailable.   Unfortunately,  for the accused persons in this case, such direct
\ntestimony was available in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  P.W.1, in his evidence, has given a graphic  description  of  the
\nbackground.  He has referred to the incidents of 17.5.1992 and 18.5.19 92.  He
\nhas  also  referred to the fact that on 18.5.1992, Sekar was obstructed by the
\nfourth accused, and on his threat that his head will  be  severed,  Sekar  had
\ntaken the aid of his brother.  P.W.1 has also deposed that he had told this to
\nP.W.4  –  John  alias  Thangadurai,  on  which,  P.W.1  and P.W.4 – John alias
\nThangadurai again met the  elderly  persons  of  Thevar  community  and  again<\/p>\n
settled the  matter.  P.W.1 refers to the incident of 20th May 1992 that while
\nhe and P.W.2 Chinnathambi, as also Sekar, were returning from the coffee shop,
\nA1 to A3 obstructed them and A4 \u2013 Masanam attempted to cut P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
11.  When we go closely through the evidence of P.W.1, it would be  seen  that
\nhe  had  stated in the Court that the assault was made by A4 – Masanam, not on
\nthe deceased, but on himself.  He points out that when A4 \u2013 Masanam  tried  to
\nassault him,  Thavamani  Thevar, who was present, thwarted that attack.  It is
\nonly thereafter that he refers to the assault by the fourth accused on  Sekar.
\nIt  is  very  significant to note here that P.W.1, till then, did not refer to
\nthe accused persons A1, A2 and A3.  It  cannot  also  be  made  out  from  his
\nevidence that  all  the  four  accused  came together.  It is obvious from the
\nevidence that the first three accused were ahead, while the fourth accused was
\nbehind them.  The witness then goes on to graphically describe the assault  on
\nSekar  and  suggests  that,  sensing the assault and being injured, Sekar then
\nstarted running helter and skelter; but he was  stopped  by  the  other  three
\naccused, A1, A2 and A3, so that he becomes available for further assault by A4\n<\/p>\n
– Masanam.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  learned counsel suggests, and in our opinion, rightly, that
\nthe witness has not told in what manner was Sekar stopped.  The words used  in
\nTamil  “Xltplhky;  tHpkwpj;jdh;”,  meaning  stopped or prevented from running.
\nHowever, it is to be noted that the witness is completely silent in the manner
\nin which the other three accused persons stopped Sekar.   Again,  it  is  very
\ndifficult  to  accept  that, after being assaulted in a very serious manner by
\nthe fourth accused, how Sekar would  be  in  a  position  to  run  hither  and
\nthither.   Therefore,  this part of the story appears to be unnatural, and the
\nstory of subsequent assault by the fourth accused appears to be less  natural.
\nWhen  we go through the cross examination of this witness, there is hardly any
\ncross examination on the main incident of assault.  On the other  hand,  there
\nare some suicidal suggestions given, which establish the presence, not only of
\nthe fourth accused on the spot, but also of this witness, along with the other
\nwitness P.W.2,  namely,  Chinnathambi.    The  suggestions  also establish the
\npresence of the other accused persons.  However, the question would be whether
\ntheir mere presence would, by itself, be sufficient to convict them wit h  the
\naid of  Section  34,  I.P.C.  We propose to examine this question in the later
\npart of this judgment when we appreciate the evidence of  P.W.2,  who  is  the
\nonly other eye-witness.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Be  that as it may, there has been little or no crossexamination
\nof P.W.1 on the question of assault.  The evidence witnessed  insofar  as  the
\nassault is  concerned, appears to be less natural.  He has not exaggerated the
\nevidence in any manner and his presence on the spot can also not  be  doubted,
\nwhen it  is  corroborated  by  the evidence of P.W.2.  That apart, it is clear
\nthat it is only this witness who has gone  and  reported  the  matter  to  the
\npolice station  almost  immediately.  It could be seen that the police station
\nwas 8 kms away from the spot.  According to the learned  defence  counsel,  it
\nwas 6 kms.  It could be seen that this discrepancy of 2 Kms.  clearly makes no
\ndifference,  when  the  matter  remains that it was this witness and P.W.2 who
\nwent to the police station, which is also  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of
\nP.W.10-Ganapathy, who   refers   to   both   P.Ws.1   and  2.    There  is  no
\ncross-examination to P.W.10 on this issue.  Therefore, the evidence  of  P.W.1
\ncan be safely accepted at least in so far as the assault is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   It  was  tried to be stated that there are some discrepancies in
\nthe matter of First Information Report.  While  according  to  P.W.1,  he  had
\nwritten  the  First  Information  Report  himself,  according to P.W.2, he had
\ndictated it and then some other person  had  written  it.    That,  again,  is
\ncompletely  immaterial so long as the First Information Report has been proved
\nproperly.  It was, therefore, suggested that the First Information Report  was
\nnot  proved properly and that there were some discrepancies in the initials of
\nP.W.2 – Chinnathambi.  All these could have been put to P.W.10  in  the  cross
\nexamination,   but   his   evidence   has   not   been   challenged   by   any
\ncross-examination.  Therefore, it cannot be disputed that P.Ws.1 and 2 reached
\nthe police station to make a report.\n<\/p>\n
15.   In  his  further  cross-examination,  P.W.1  has  given  some  fantastic
\nsuggestions   that   it  was  Sekar  who  wanted  to  assault  Narayanan,  but
\nunfortunately, it is not the case of the accused persons in their  examination
\nunder Section  313,  Cr.P.C.  That apart, the story of Narayanan being present
\non the  spot  appears  to  be  completely  a  myth,  not  established  in  the
\ncross-examination in  any  manner.  That only suggests the truthfulness of the
\nprosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The learned counsel also made a serious criticism that  Thavamani  Thevar
\nwas not  examined  by  the  prosecution.   True it is, that he could have been
\nexamined by the prosecution.  However,  his  nonexamination  would  be  of  no
\nconsequence,  particularly  because  the prosecution has safely and completely
\nrelied upon the evidence of these two witnesses, who were not shaken in  their
\ncross examination at all.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  P.W.2 has supported the version of P.W.1.  He has also  tried  to
\ntell  the  same  story  in  so far as the three accused persons are concerned.
\nEven insofar  as  accused  No.4  is  concerned,  he  has  given  a  completely
\ncorroborating version of the assault.  He has also tried to say that after the
\nassault  on  Sekar,  Sekar tried to run away, when he was stopped by the other
\nthree accused persons; but beyond this, no role is attributed by P.W.2 to  the
\npresence of  the first three accused.  It is also very significant that during
\nthe investigation there was no attempt made to collect the clothes of  accused
\nNos.1, 2  and  3.  It cannot be imagined that if the accused persons prevented
\nsekar or stopped him from running, they would have come in  contact  with  the
\nblood  of  deceased, as it is stated that Sekar was profusely bleeding because
\nof the aruval – billhook blows.  Any such evidence regarding the blood-stained
\nclothes of the first three accused persons could have given some clue.  But in
\nthe absence of any such corroborating evidence and the sketchy role  that  has
\nbeen  given  to  them  by  merely  preventing  Sekar  from running away, it is
\ndifficult to hold that the first three accused  actually  had  the  murder  in
\nmind.   We  will  come to the question of intention on the part of the accused
\npersons in the later part of the judgment.  However, it cannot  be  said  that
\nthe  evidence  of these two witnesses, could be shaken in any manner, in their
\ncrossexamination.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  If the ocular testimony of these two witnesses  is  accepted,  as
\nhas  been  done  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,  there  would really be no
\nnecessity of any other evidence, to convict at least the fourth accused.    In
\naddition,  we  have  the  evidence of P.W.3 Selvakumar, Village Administrative
\nOfficer.  He is also a witness on the discovery statement made.    The  fourth
\naccused had,  in  his  statement,  while  filing Ex.  P2, has taken the police
\nparty to a thorny shrub, taken an aruval ( billhook) and handed it over to the
\nInspector of Police.  Eventually, this aruval (billhook) was sent for chemical
\nexamination and the presence of human blood was then found to be belonging  to
\n\u201cAB\u201d Group.    The  result  of  the chemical examination of the clothes of the
\ndeceased only shows that the blood group of the deceased was \u201cAB\u201d.  Therefore,
\nit is obvious that the aruval (billhook) contained blood stains for  which  no
\nexplanation is  coming  forth from the fourth accused.  The discovery evidence
\nwas tried to be assailed  by  the  learned  counsel  by  suggesting  that  the
\ndiscovery was  of  farcial  nature.  Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and the
\nevidence of investigating officer, we do not think so.  The further fact  that
\nthe  discovered  aruval – billhook had \u201cAB\u201d Group blood and the fact that both
\nthe witnesses have described the assailant to be  with  an  aruval  (billhook)
\nwould  go to suggest that that was the aruval (billhook) which was used in the
\ncrime.  There is no other explanation coming forth from the  accused  in  this
\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   Besides  this,  we  have  the  evidence  of  P.W.4  \u2013 John alias
\nThangadurai, who spoke about the previous day’s incident, with  which,  really
\nwe are not concerned particularly in view of the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and
\nP.W.2.  It is therefore obvious that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that
\nthe assault was made on Sekar by the fourth accused with an aruval (billhook),
\nand as a result of that assault, Sekar died an instantaneous death.\n<\/p>\n
20.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  defence took us through the post-mortem
\nreport and tried to point out that from the evidence of the doctor,  it  could
\nbe  established  that the death was much earlier than the time, claimed by the
\nwitness.  We see from the post mortem report that the opinion of the doctor is
\nthat the death could  have  occurred  six  hours  prior  to  the  port  mortem
\nexamination.   The  post  mortem  examination  was  held  at 4 O’ clock in the
\nafternoon.  The doctor suggested that the death could have occurred six  hours
\nprior to  post mortem.  Hence, there was a possibility of death at 10 O’ clock
\nin the forenoon.  However, the doctor has also indicated a four hours’ margin.
\nTherefore, the death could have occurred between 6 O’ Clock and 10  O’  Clock.
\nBut  the learned counsel also points out that there was undigested food in the
\nstomach of the deceased, and that therefore,  the  death  must  have  occurred
\nthree  hours  after  food  was  consumed which could be by 9 O’ Clock or 10 O’
\nClock in the night.  If the undigested food stuff was found  in  the  stomach,
\nthen the  death  would have occurred much earlier to 6 ‘ O Clock.  The learned
\ncounsel submitted that it was for the prosecution to apprise as  to  when  the
\ndeceased had  his  last supper or food, as the case may be.  All these are not
\nnecessary.  The fact remains that the deceased  was  seen  alive  by  the  two
\nwitnesses at 7.45 a.m.  and their testimony could not be demolished.  Not only
\nthis,  but  the  suggestions  also  make it clear that it was the deceased who
\nhimself tried to assault A4 – Masanam.  If it is suggested by the defence that
\nSekar was alive even at 7.45 a.m., that would knock out the  case  that  Sekar
\ndied somewhere  prior  to  6  O\u2019  Clock.  We are of the clear opinion that the
\nprosecution has been able to establish by the evidence of P.Ws.1  and  2  that
\nthe  death  has  occurred  in  between  6  O\u2019  Clock  to 10 O\u2019 Clock, and more
\nparticularly, by 8 O\u2019 Clock in the morning.  This brings us to the question of
\nthe offences against the accused-1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The learned counsel contended that there was nothing  to  suggest
\nthat there was a meeting of minds on the part of the three accused, A1, A2 and
\nA3 on the one hand and A4 \u2013 Masanam on the other.  He also pointed out that it
\nwas  not as if when A4 \u2013 Masanam was brandishing his aruval (billhook) so that
\nthe other accused persons knew that A4 \u2013 Masanam was  armed  with  the  deadly
\nweapon like  aruval (billhook).  The learned counsel, therefore, contends that
\nin view of the fact that the sudden assault was made by A4 – Masanam, even  if
\nthat  is  taken  to  be established, there is nothing to suggest that A1 to A3
\nshared the same common intention.  The learned counsel contends,  and  in  our
\nopinion, rightly, that the evidence suggests that all the accused did not come
\ntogether.   On  the  other hand, there is an evidence on record that the three
\naccused persons A1, A2 and A3  were  in  one  group,  whereas,  A4  \u2013  Masanam
\nfollowed them.    The  learned counsel is undoubtedly right in saying that the
\nprosecution did not collect or present any  evidence  regarding  the  previous
\nmeeting  of  minds  of the accused persons and regarding the place where those
\nfour persons were, before the incident of assault took place.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   The  learned  public  prosecutor,  however,  suggests  that  the
\nintention could  develop  even  at  the spot.  He suggests that the act on the
\npart of the first three accused persons in stopping or preventing  Sekar  from
\nrunning away, by itself, speaks volumes about the intention on the part of the
\naccused persons.    He  suggests that if they had not been able to stop Sekar,
\nmay be, Sekar could have escaped the  death.    Considering  the  injuries  on
\nSekar, that does not seem so.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  When we go through the evidence of the doctor, it  is  seen  that
\nSekar had suffered as many as twelve injuries.  The description of Injury No.1
\nis  stated  to  be  an irregularly shaped lacerated injury extending from left
\ncheek to right angle of mandible passing  through  muscles,  nerves,  vessels,
\noesophagus, trochea,  brain  and in between upper and lower jaw 21 cms.  depth
\nand 8cms.  breadth.  It is obvious that  the  injury  was  made  with  extreme
\nforce.   The  second  injury  is also stated to be a cut injury extending from
\nright side of nose up to root to the right side of chin.  The third injury  is
\nstated  to be an eleptical cut injury extending from front of right humorus to
\nlower border of scapula 24 cm X 5 cm X bone deep.  The fourth injury is stated
\nto be a vertical cut passing between right middle and ring finger 4 cm x 3 cm.
\nX bone deep.  The fifth injury is stated to be an incised wound of \u00bd cm.  X  \u00bd
\ncm x  skin deep over middle phalamges of right index finger.  The sixth injury
\nis stated to be an eleptical wound over dorsal aspect of middle of kruckle  of
\nall the fingers of left hand except thumb and are hanging.  The seventh injury
\nis  stated  to  be  an eleptically cut wound over left shoulder extending from
\nleft clavicle upto 7 cm.  below 7cm x 3 cm.  X skin deep.  The  eighth  injury
\nis stated  to  be  an  eleptically cut wound of 2 cm.  X \u00bd cm x skin deep just
\nbelow the right knee.  The ninth injury is stated to be an eleptically incised
\nwound over dorsum of foot 5 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm.  The tenth injury is  stated  to
\nbe  a  vertically  cut  wound  passing  between  3rd and 4th toe up to medical
\nmallgous completely cut and hanging by skin over dorsal aspect.  The  eleventh
\ninjury is  stated  to be an abrasion of 1 cm x \u00bd cm.  X skin deep of eleptical
\nshape and the twelfth injury is stated to be an incised  wound  over  parietal
\nregion 4 cm.   X 4 cm.  X bone deep.  The injuries other than injury Nos.1 and
\n2, upto injury No.11, appear to be relatively small but not less serious, more
\nparticularly, injury No.7, which is  a  cut  wound  over  the  left  shoulder,
\nextending from left clavicle  upto  7 cm.  below 7cm x 3 cm.  X skin deep.  So
\nalso injury Nos.10 and 12 are of extremely serious nature, injury No.10  being
\na  vertically  cut wound passing between 3rd and 4th toe upto medical mallgous
\ncompletely cut and hanging by skin over dorsal aspect and the  twelfth  injury
\nbeing an incised  wound  over  parietal  region  4  cm.  X 4 cm.  X bone deep.
\nUnder such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that  after  an  assault,
\nSekar had  actually  tried  to  run  away.    It is again not clear as to what
\nexactly was done by A1, A2 and A3 against which part of  the  body  of  Sekar.
\nMerely  suggesting  that they stopped him from running away is too general, in
\nour opinion.  The witnesses are expected to give exactly the nature of the act
\non the part of each accused.  That, unfortunately, has not  been  done.    The
\nbenefit should  go  to  the  accused.    We  are of the clear opinion that the
\nprosecution has not been able to establish that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3  shared
\nthe same  common  intention of murdering, with the fourth accused.  Insofar as
\nthe intention of the fourth accused is concerned, it is clear  that  it  comes
\nwithin  the  third  limb  of Section 300 I.P.C., that those criminal acts were
\nsufficient to cause the death and we have no doubt  that  the  fourth  accused
\nintended to  cause  those  injuries.    Therefore, the finding of the Sessions
\nJudge was absolutely right to convict the fourth accused for the offence under
\nSection 302, I.P.C.  However, we do not  agree  with  the  Sessions  Judge  in
\nconvicting the  first  three  accused  also.   In our opinion, the first three
\naccused would be entitled for acquittal.   Therefore,  insofar  as  the  first
\nthree accused  are  concerned,  the  appeal  is  hereby allowed.  The sentence
\nimposed on the first three accused is set aside and they are  directed  to  be
\nset free,  unless  they  are  wanted  in any other offence.  The appeal of the
\nfourth accused, however,  is  dismissed  and  the  verdict,  version  and  the
\nresultant sentence are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        With this, we dispose of the criminal appeal as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To:  The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
Ksv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN Crl.Appeal No.725 of 1997 1. Muthu @ Durai Pandi @ Muthulingam 2. Esakkipandi 3. Velu 4. Masanam .. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3964,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002"},"wordCount":3964,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002","name":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T18:54:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-durai-pandi-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthu @ Durai Pandi vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}