{"id":124027,"date":"2005-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005"},"modified":"2015-09-09T01:25:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-08T19:55:16","slug":"state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 02\/02\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  N.DHINAKAR           \nand \nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  A.KULASEKARAN             \n\nCriminal Appeal No. 709 of 1996\n\n\nState by Public Prosecutor,\nHigh Court, Madras.                             ... Appellant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nPonnusamy                                      ... Respondent\n\n\n        Prayer:  Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned  Additional\nSessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.  193 of 1992 dated :  29.9.1994.\n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran\n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy   \n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.  DHINAKAR,J) <\/p>\n
        The appellant is the State.   The  respondent  was  tried  before  the
\nlearned  Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, on the allegation that at 2.30 p.m.
\non 7.1.1992, he caused the death of Sivaraj, who hereinafter will be  referred
\nto  as  “D-1” and Kanniammal, who hereinafter will be referred to as “D-2”, by
\ncutting them with axe and that he also committed  theft  of  the  nose  screws
\nbelonging to Kanniammal, D-2.  Three charges were framed and two of which were
\nunder Section  302 IPC.  for causing the death of D-1 and D-2 and the other is
\nunder Section 404 IPC.  for removing the nose  screws.    The  respondent  was
\nacquitted of all the charges, which is being challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:-
\n        P.W.1 is the father of D-1 and D-2 is the wife of P.W.2 and she is the
\nsister-in-law of  P.W.1.   At about 9.00 a.m., D-1 left the house taking along
\nwith him the goats for grazing and he was accompanied by D-2.  At  about  6.00
\np.m.,  P.W.1  was invited by three of his friends and while they were going to
\nBannari Temple, they saw the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 with cut injuries.  In
\nthe meantime, 10 or 20 villagers have also gathered.  A woman by name,  Pappa,
\ninformed  them that on the previous day, one Mohan, a Forest Guard, misbehaved
\nwith her and he could have committed the offence.  Therefore, P.W.1 and others
\nwent to the house of  Mohan  and  found  Mohan  with  injuries  on  his  face.
\nWatcher, Subban,  was also there.  When the villagers questioned them, both of
\nthem informed that the villgers can do anything they want.   Therefore,  P.W.1
\naccompanied by P.W.2 went to the Office of the Village Administrative Officer,
\nP.W.14, and gave a complaint, which was recorded by P.W.14 and the same stands
\nmarked as  Ex.P-23.    P.W.14  took the complaint, Ex.P-23, to Sathiyamangalam
\nPolice Station and handed over the  same  to  P.W.17,  the  Sub  Inspector  of
\nPolice,  who  registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1992 against unknown accused.
\nThe printed first information report is Ex.P-30 and investigation in the  case
\nwas  taken  up  by  P.W.18, Circle Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police
\nStation.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  P.W.18, on taking up investigation  in  the  crime,  proceeded  to
\nSathiyamangalam Police  Station,  and  reached  it at 2.15 a.m.  on 8.1.1992 ,
\nwhere he was given a copy of the first information report.   He  proceeded  to
\nthe  scene  of  occurrence  accompanied  by  P.W.17  and  P.W.14,  the Village
\nAdministrative Officer as well as the other Police Constables.  He also sent a
\nrequisition to the Sniffer Dog Squad to go over to the  scene  of  occurrence.
\nP.W.18, at 6.00 a.m., prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-25, where the dead
\nbody of  D-2  was  lying.   At 6.3 0 a.m., he prepared an observation mahazar,
\nEx.P-26, where the dead body of D-1 was  lying.    He  drew  a  rough  sketch,
\nEx.P-31.  P.W.10,  the photographer, took photographs of the dead bodies.  The
\ninquest over the dead body of D-2 was conducted between 7.00 a.m.  and 9.30 a.
\nm.  and the inquest report is Ex.P-32.  On the dead body of D-1,  inquest  was
\nconducted between 9.30  a.m.    and  11.00  a.m.    and  the inquest report is
\nEx.P-33.  P.Ws.1, 2 and  others  were  questioned  during  inquest  and  their
\nstatements were recorded.  After the inquest, the bodies were handed over with
\ntwo requisitions, Exs.P-15 and P-16, for conducting autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On receipt of the requisitions, P.W.13, Assistant Resident Medical
\nOfficer attached to Government Hospital, Sathiyamangalam, conducted autopsy on
\nthe dead body of D-1 and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.A cut  injury  on  the  right  side  of  the  neck  measuring 5x4x4 cms.  On
\ndissection, he found that the sterno-mastoid muscle was cut.\n<\/p>\n
2.A lacerated injury on the parietal bone measuring 7 x 3 cm x bone depth  and
\non internal examination, the parietal bone was found fractured.\n<\/p>\n
3.An incised wound measuring 2.5 x 0.5 cm on the back of neck.\n<\/p>\n
4.An  incised  injury  on  the  left  side of neck near mastoid bone measuring
\n0.5×0.5×2 cms with the depth of 2 cms.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P-21, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion  that
\nthe  deceased  (D-1)  died  on  account  of  shock  and haemorrhage due to the
\ninjuries about 18 to 26 hours prior to post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The post-mortem over the dead body of D-2 was conducted  by  P.W.1
\n2,  the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam, who
\nfound the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.An irregular lacerated injury measuring 5×3  cms  with  bone  depth  on  the
\nforehead.  On dissection, the right frontal bone was found fractured.\n<\/p>\n
2.An  incised wound measuring 7x5x5 cms on the right side of the back of neck.
\nOn dissection, C-5 and C-6 vertebrae were found fractured.\n<\/p>\n
3.An irregular lacerated injury measuring 3×2 cms with bone depth on the right
\nside of the back of head and on dissection, no fracture was seen.\n<\/p>\n
4.A linear contusion measuring 27 cms on the right thigh  and  on  dissection,
\nblood clots were noticed.\n<\/p>\n
The  doctor issued Ex.P-14, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that
\nthe deceased (D-2) would have died on account of shock and  haemorrhage  about
\n18 to 26 hours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   P.W.18,  in the meantime, seized blood-stained earth, M.O.27, and
\nsample earth, M.O.28, and M.Os.29 to 32, from the place, where the  dead  body
\nof D-2 was lying, under a mahazar Ex.P-27 attested by P.W.1 4.  He also seized
\nM.Os.38 to 41 from the same place under a mahazar Ex.P-29 attested by the same
\nwitnesses.   M.Os.33  to 37 were seized from the place, where the dead body of
\nD-1 was lying, under a mahazar Ex.P-28 attested by  witnesses.    The  officer
\ntook steps  to  trace  the  accused, but he could not get any information.  On
\n9.1.1992, he examined P.W.3 and other witnesses.  He examined P.Ws.12 and  13,
\nthe two  doctors,  and  recorded  their statements.  On examining one Maniyal,
\ndaughter of Sriranga Gounder, he came to know that the nose screws of D-2 were
\nstolen and therefore, an offence under Section 379 IPC.    was  added  to  the
\ncrime and  a  special  report,  Ex.P-34,  was  sent  to Court on 9.1.1992.  On
\n10.1.1992, he questioned P.Ws, 10, 15, 16 and others,  whose  statements  were
\nrecorded.   On 11.1.1992, 12.1.1992 and 15.1.1992 he searched for the accused,
\nbut could not get any information.  On 14 .1.1992, on the  directions  of  the
\nSuperintendent of Police, he handed over investigation to P.W.19.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   P.W.19,  on  taking  up  investigation  from P.W.18 on 14.1.1992,
\nexamined P.W.8 and other witnesses and on 15.1.1992, went to  Bannari  forest,
\nwhere he examined P.Ws.4, 9, 10 and others.  At 2.15 p.m.  on the same day, he
\nwent  to  the tea stall of P.W.9, where the respondent was working, and seized
\nM.O.2, a towel, under a mahazar Ex.P-1 attested by witnesses.   On  16.1.1992,
\nhe  proceeded  to  SathiyamangalamThimman road and at Bannari forest, arrested
\nthe respondent and he gave  a  statement  in  the  presence  of  P.W.9.    The
\nadmissible portion  of the said statement is Ex.P-2.  In pursuance of the said
\nstatement, Ex.P-2, the respondent took the police  party  to  the  forest  and
\nproduced M.O.3 , an axe, and M.O.4, a shirt.  They were seized under a mahazar
\nEx.P-3.  At 5.45 p.m., he took the police party to a tree and from the hole in
\nthe  tree,  produced  M.O.1  series,  nose  screws,  which were seized under a
\nmahazar Ex.P-14.  The nose screws were identified  by  P.Ws.2  and  3  at  the
\npolice station.   Their  statements were recorded.  The respondent was sent to
\nhospital with a requisition to examine him and accordingly, he was examined by
\nthe doctor for his potency.  After the examination, the respondent was sent to
\nCourt for remand.  He gave a requisition under Ex.P-35 to the  Court  to  send
\nthe  material objects for analysis and the Court, by forwarding them, obtained
\nEx.P-37, the report of the Chemical Analyst and Ex.P-38,  the  report  of  the
\nSerologist.   He  gave  a requisition to Judicial Magistrate, Erode, to record
\nthe statement of the respondent\/accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  On receipt of the requisition, P.W.11, Judicial Magistrte,  Erode,
\ndirected  the  jail  authorities  to  produce  the  respondent  before him and
\naccordingly, he was produced on  21.1.1992.    He  was  questioned  and  after
\nsatisfying  that  the respondent is in a mood to confess, sent him back to the
\njail with a direction to the jail authorities to keep him in a  separate  cell
\nso  as  to  enable  the  respondent to reflect and with a further direction to
\nproduce the respondent before him on the next day.  Accordingly, on 22.1.1992,
\nthe respondent was produced before P.W.11 at about 2.45 p.m.  with Ex.P-6, the
\nreport of the jail authorities that the respondent was detained in a  separate
\ncell.  P.W.11, after following the procedure, questioned the respondent and he
\ngave a  statement.    Ex.P-7  are  the  proceedings  of the learned Magistrate
\ncontaining the statement of the respondent and Ex.P-8 are the  proceedings  of
\nP.W.11  dated  21.1.1992  and  Ex.P-9  are the proceedings dated 22.1.1992 and
\nEx.P-10 is the statement given by the  respondent.    The  learned  Magistrate
\ncorrected  the  words  “fk;ky;”  by  scoring it off and the said correction is
\nmarked as Ex.P-11.  He has also made his note under Ex.P-11  stating  that  he
\nhas corrected by scoring the words ” fk;ky;” (ear rings), which was written by
\nmistake, and Ex.P-12 is the certificate given by P.W.11.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   P.W.19  handed over investigation back to P.W.18 on 25.1.1992, on
\nthe  orders  of  the  Superintendent  of  Police  and  P.W.18,  on  taking  up
\ninvestigation  from  P.W.19  on  27.1.1992, questioned P.W.12 and recorded his
\nstatement.  After the completion of investigation, he filed the  final  report
\nagainst the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  respondent  was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
\non the  incriminating  circumstances.    He  denied  all   the   incriminating
\ncircumstances.   He filed a written statement, in which, he has stated that he
\nwas not arrested as claimed by P.W.19 near a temple at Bannari and that he did
\nnot produce the axe, the nose screws and other materials.  He has also  stated
\nthat  he  did  not give any confession statement voluntarily before P.W.11 and
\nthat the said statement was given by him on account of the threat given to him
\nby P.Ws.18 and 19.  He has  further  stated  that  the  real  assailants  were
\nidentified  by  the  sniffer  dog, but since they were employees of the Forest
\nDepartment, they were let off and a false case had been foisted upon him.   He
\nexamined  D.W.1  to  state that the respondent was working in the tea stall of
\nP.W.9 and that he was taken into custody three days after the incident by  the
\npolice.  D.W.2 was examined to say that on the date of incident, while she was
\ngrazing cattle  and  goats,  she  saw D-1 and D-2 in the forest.  She has also
\nstated that she found the Forest Guard, Mohan, holding the hands of D-2 and on
\nseeing this, she ran away from the place along with her friend,  Shanthi,  and
\ninformed the  same  to the villagers.  According to her, the villagers came to
\nthe scene of occurrence and found the dead bodies of  D-1  and  D-2  and  that
\nthereafter,  a  sniffer dog was brought, which went to the house of Mohan, the
\nForest Guard.  According to her, she was also taken  to  the  police  station,
\nwhere Mohan, the Forest Guard, was brought and questioned.  D.W.3 was examined
\nto  show that he took the sniffer dog, Rambo, in connection with Crime No.3 of
\n1992 to the scene of occurrence and the said sniffer dog went into the  forest
\nand  stood  in  front  of  the  house  of  the  Forest  Guard, Mohan, and that
\nthereafter, he returned to the Headquarters with  the  dog.    Ex.D-4  is  the
\nletter  addressed  by  P.W.18 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, wherein
\nP.W.18 has stated that the sniffer dog had gone to the  house  of  the  Forest
\nGuard,  Mohan,  and after going around the house two times, it stood there and
\nthe said document was marked through D.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that  the  trial
\nJudge  was not justified in acquitting the respondent in the background of the
\nevidence of P.W.3, who had seen D-2 in the company of the respondent and  that
\nthereafter, she  was not seen alive.  The Additional Public Prosecutor further
\nsubmits that M.O.1 series, nose screws, were recovered at the instance of  the
\nrespondent  and  therefore,  the  trial  Court  ought  to  have  accepted  the
\nprosecution version and the acquittal of the respondent is bad in law.  On the
\nabove contentions, we  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The cause of death of D-1 and D-2 stands established through the
\ndoctors, P.Ws.12 and 13.  The cause of death  is  also  not  disputed  by  the
\nrespondent.   On  the  medical  evidence, we, therefore, hold that D-1 and D-2
\ndied on account of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Before the trial Court, the prosecution wanted to  establish  the
\ncase  by  relying  upon  circumstantial  evidence,  as  the occurrence was not
\nwitnessed by anyone.  The first circumstance  was  sought  to  be  established
\nthrough the  evidence  of P.W.3.  P.W.3 is the wife of one Subban, an employee
\nof the Forest Department.  According to her, she had seen the  respondent  and
\nD-2 on  the  date  of  incident  at  about  2.30  p.m.    and that D-2 and the
\nrespondent were seen going into the Forest.  It is the case of the prosecution
\nthat after D-2 was seen alive by P.W.3, she was not seen by  anyone  and  that
\nher  dead body was seen by P.W.1, who was proceeding to Bannari along with his
\nfriend.  When P.W.3 was cross-examined, she has admitted that she did not  see
\nthe respondent’s  face  and only she saw his back.  She has also admitted that
\nwhen she was examined during investigation, she did not tell the officer  that
\nshe saw the respondent along with D-2.  This shows that P.W.3 never had a case
\nduring  investigation that she saw the respondent and D-2 together on the date
\nof incident and the present evidence is not only  an  improvement,  but  is  a
\nfresh case  put  forth by her for the first time in the Court.  She has denied
\nthat  her  husband,  Subban,  and  Mohan,  another  employee  of  the   Forest
\nDepartment, were detained by the police.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   In  the  background  of the evidence of P.W.3 and the suggestion
\nmade to her, when we look at the evidence of P.W.5, who was  examined  by  the
\nprosecution  to show that Mohan was on duty on 7.1.1992, it could be seen that
\nthe prosecution  did  not  succeed  in  establishing  the  said  fact.      In
\ncross-examination,  P.W.5,  though  has stated that he gave orders to Mohan to
\nmake enquiries as to the missing of elephant tusk and that he has  to  go  for
\nraid,  has  admitted that he has not passed any written orders to that effect.
\nHe has also admitted that if records are summoned from  the  office,  it  will
\nshow  as  to  the  duties  assigned  to  the Forest Guard, Mohan, and to other
\nemployees of the Forest Department.  The prosecution did not summon any of the
\ndocuments from the Forest Department to show that actually Mohan was  assigned
\nthe duty to trace the missing elephant tusk and to go for a raid.  He has also
\nadmitted in cross-examination that he did not inform the investigating officer
\nthat  he came to know that Mohan had gone to Bannai by travelling in a bus and
\nthat he also came to know that on 7.1.1992 Mohan was drunk and that he did not
\ninitiate any steps against him.  In this connection,  the  evidence  of  P.W.7
\nalso assumes  importance.    He was a driver of a private bus, in which, Mohan
\ntravelled on the date of incident and according  to  P.W.7,  Mohan  was  fully
\ndrunk, when he was travelling in the bus.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  evidence  of P.W.2, when perused, shows that the complaint,
\nEx.P-1, was not actually given by P.W.1, but the thumb impression of P.W.1 was
\ntaken by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police.  He  has  further  admitted  in  the
\ncross-examination  that  since  the  police  officers  did not take any action
\nagainst the real culprit, they conducted road roko and that thereafter, on the
\norders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,  a  sniffer  dog  was  brought,
\nwhich,  after  visiting  the  scene  of  occurrence  and sniffing the two dead
\nbodies, ran to the house of Mohan and stood there, from where,  the  axe,  the
\nnose screws and some clothes were recovered by the police officers and that he
\nidentified  the  clothes  as  clothes belonging to his wife, who is D-2 in the
\ncase.  He has further stated in the cross-examination that he  and  the  other
\nvillagers  complained  to  the  Member  of  the Legislative Assembly about the
\ndishonest investigation that was being co nducted by the investigating  agency
\nand   finally  concluded  in  the  cross-examination  by  admitting  that  the
\nrespondent has no connection with the case and that he was threatened  by  the
\nInspector  of  Police  not  to give any evidence against Mohan and Subban, the
\nForest Officers.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  The last piece of evidence is the recovery.  Though according  to
\nP.W.18,  he  came  to  know,  on  examining  one Maniyal, daughter of Sriranga
\nGounder, on 9.1.1992 that D-2 was wearing nose screws on the date of  incident
\nand  he  sent  a  special  report,  Ex.P-34, the prosecution did not choose to
\nexamine the said Maniayal.  In fact,  in  the  complaint,  Ex.P-23,  given  by
\nP.W.1,  it is not found mentioned that D-2 was wearing nose screws on the date
\nof incident.  The non examination of Maniyal, and the absence of any  averment
\nin  the  complaint  that  D-2 was wearing nose screws on the date of incident,
\nwhen looked it in the background of the evidence as regards the  recovery,  it
\ncreates a  doubt whether the prosecution had come out with a true version.  We
\nhave also adverted to the evidence of P.W.2, the husband of D-2.  He  has  not
\nonly  stated  that  the  sniffer dog went to the house of Mohan and Subban and
\nthat they resorted to road roko, but also stated that Mohan  and  Subban  were
\ntaken  to custody on the same day and M.O.1 series were also shown to them and
\nthat later, Mohan and Subban were let off, which means that even on  8.1.1992,
\nthe  sniffer  dog  reached  the scene of occurrence and after sniffing the two
\ndead bodies, went to the house of Mohan and that M.O.1 series  were  shown  to
\nthem and that Mohan and Subban were detained by the police.  M.O.1 series were
\nshown  to P.W.2, who identified it to be the jewels belonging to his wife; but
\nthe prosecution strangely, through the evidence of P.W.18, came out  with  the
\nversion  that  only  on 9.1.1992, he came to know through Maniyal, who was not
\nexamined, that D-2 was wearing the nose screws, when she met her end.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In the above background, we do not attach any importance  to  the
\nevidence  as  regards  the  recovery  and  finally  coming  to the confession,
\nEx.P-10, alleged to have been given by the respondent to P.W.11, we feel  that
\nthe said confession must have been given by the respondent on being threatened
\nby  the  police  officers as stated by the respondent in his written statement
\nfiled under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   P.W.11,  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  in  his
\nevidence,  has  stated  that  the  respondent,  while  narrating the incident,
\nmentioned the word “fk;ky;” and later,  after  the  completion  of  narration,
\ninformed the Judicial Magistrate that he did not mention the word “fk;ky;” and
\ntherefore, it  was  struck off.  It is nobody’s case that the ear rings, which
\nwere on the dead body of D-2, were removed by the assailant, as it  was  found
\non the  ears  of  D-2.  If the assailant had taken the trouble of removing the
\nnose screws, then, there could not have  been  any  difficulty  for  the  said
\nassailant to  have  removed  the ear rings also.  Therefore, it becomes highly
\ndoubtful, whether M.O.1 series, nose screws, were removed from the  dead  body
\nof  D-2  and  the  statement of the respondent to P.W.11, Judicial Magistrate,
\nErode, mentioning that he has removed the ear rings and later, going  back  on
\nthe  said statement, shows the confused state of mind, in which the respondent
\nwas in, when he gave the statement to the Judicial Magistrate and the confused
\nstate of mind, therefore, indicates that in all probabilities, the  respondent
\nwould  have given the statement on account of threats given by P.Ws.18 and 19.
\nIn the absence of any other material and in the absence of any statement about
\nthe missing of nose screws either in the complaint or in the evidence  and  in
\nthe  background  of  the  non-examination  of  Maniyal from whom, according to
\nP.W.18, he came to know that D-2 was wearing the nose screws and  in  view  of
\nthe  admission  of  P.W.2, the husband of D-2, that M.O.1 series were shown to
\nhim even on 8.1.1992 after Mohan and Subban were taken into custody, create  a
\ndoubt  that  all  is  not  well  with the prosecution and no importance can be
\nattached to the statement, Ex.P-10, given by the respondent,  as  a  statement
\ngiven by  him  without any threat or coercion.  We, therefore, reject the said
\nconfession, as it was not a confession given by a man with free  mind  and  it
\nwas also not voluntary in nature.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   We have to remember that this is an appeal against acquittal and
\nif two views are possible  and  if  the  said  views  are  not  perverse,  the
\nAppellate  Court cannot substitute its views with the views of the trial Court
\nby holding that another view in favour of the prosecution could also be taken.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In the background of the discussion made above, and  in  view  of
\nthe  settled  principles of law, and on the reasons given by the learned trial
\nJudge, we find no reason to interfere with the order of  acquittal  except  to
\nstate that the investigating agency acted in a dishonest manner with a view to
\nscreen  some  of  the  officials  of  the  Forest  Department, and it was also
\ncondemned by the trial Court in no uncertain terms.    We  approve  the  views
\nexpressed  by  the  trial  Court as regards the investigation conducted by the
\ninvestigating agency in the case and we hope and trust  that  in  future,  the
\nofficers concerned, who conducted investigation in grave offences like murder,
\ndo  not  try to shield the real culprits on the only ground that they happened
\nto be Government Officials and rope in some ignorant and illiterate persons as
\naccused, so that they can improve the statistics in their police  stations  as
\nregards  the  detection  of  crimes  and  claim  credit  and  medals  from the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes <\/p>\n
Internet:Yes<\/p>\n
bs\/<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.\n<\/p>\n
2.-do- through the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Erode.\n<\/p>\n
4.The District Collector, Erode District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Director General of Police, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02\/02\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.KULASEKARAN Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1996 State by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. … Appellant. -Vs- Ponnusamy … Respondent Prayer: […]<\/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-124027","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - 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\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-08T19:55:16+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\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-08T19:55:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3915,\"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\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\",\"name\":\"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-08T19:55:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - 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\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-08T19:55:16+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\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-08T19:55:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005"},"wordCount":3915,"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\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005","name":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-08T19:55:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-public-prosecutor-vs-ponnusamy-on-2-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By Public Prosecutor vs Ponnusamy on 2 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/124027","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=124027"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124027\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124027"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124027"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124027"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}