{"id":196590,"date":"2003-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003"},"modified":"2015-03-16T22:08:31","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T16:38:31","slug":"mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 02\/09\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  N.DHINAKAR\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 415 of 1995\n\n\n1. Mohandoss\n2. Mohandoss\n3. Govindaraj\n4. Raj Kannu                            ... Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, rep. by Inspector\nof Police, Valangiman Circle,\nCr.No.152 of 1993 on the file of\nInspector of Police, Nachiyar\nKoil Police Station.                            ... Respondent\n\nPrayer:  Appeal against the judgment passed by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,\nThanjavur, in S.C.No.  167 of 1994 dated 17.3.1995.\n\n!For Appellants         :  Mr.V.Gopinath, S.C.\n                        For M\/s.K.S.Rajagopalan and\n                        S.Panneerselvam for A-1 to A-3\n\n                        :  Mr.A.Balaguru for A-4\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Arul\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.DHINAKAR,.  J)<\/p>\n
                The appellants, four in number, who, in this judgment, will be
\nreferred  to  as  A-1 to A-4 in the order they were arrayed before the learned
\nSessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Sessions Case No.167 of  1994,  challenge  their
\nconviction and  sentence  by  preferring  the  above  appeal.   The allegation
\nagainst them is that at 6.00 a.m.    on  4.3.93,  they  wrongfully  restrained
\nSundaramoorthy,  the  deceased in the case, while he was coming in a cycle and
\nthat thereafter, indiscriminately cut  him  with  aruvals,  resulting  in  his
\ndeath.   The  learned  trial  Judge, finding all the accused guilty, sentenced
\neach one of them to one month simple imprisonment under  Section  341  I.P.C.,
\nwhile  he  sentenced  them  to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence of
\nmurder.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The case of the prosecution is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is  the  younger
\nbrother of the  deceased.  They were residing at Thuraiyur village.  P.W.4 was
\nalso residing in the same village.  About three years prior  to  the  date  of
\nincident,  P.W.1  obtained  lease to catch fish from a temple tank from P.W.6.
\nA-1 and his henchmen were preventing P.W.1 from catching fish in the said tank
\nand therefore, P.W.1 had to file a civil suit before  the  Court  of  District
\nMunsif at  Kumbakonam.  He also obtained a permanent injunction and therefore,
\nthere were ill-feelings between A-1 and his friends, A-2 to  A-4  on  the  one
\nside and  the  deceased  family  on  the  other  side.    On 1.3.93, a private<\/p>\n
complaint was given by A-2 against the deceased and another alleging that they
\nhave damaged his scooter.  This is said to be the motive for  the  occurrence,
\nwhich took place at 6.00 a.m.  on 4.3.93.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   On  4.3.93  at 6.00 a.m., the deceased left the house for
\nPalayanallur village to get agricultural labourers.   P.W.1  and  his  younger
\nson,  P.W.2,  went  to  a  tamarind tree to pick up tamarind fruits and on the
\nnorth of the tamarind tree, there was a temple.    While  P.Ws.1  and  2  were
\npicking  tamarind  fruits,  they saw the deceased coming from east in a cycle.
\nAt that time, A-1 to A-4 were seen rushing towards the deceased Sundaramoorthy
\nand each were in possession of an aruval.  The  deceased  was  prevented  from
\nproceeding  in  his  cycle  and A-4 commenced the attack by cutting him on the
\nleft hand.  The deceased, dropping the cycle, ran towards west, chased by  A-1
\nto A-4.    They  caught hold of the deceased and inflicted indiscriminate cuts
\nupon his body.  Thereafter, they ran away from the place.  P.Ws.1 to 5 and one
\nManoharan, who were present, witnessed the incident.  At the  scene,  a  moped
\nwas seen  parked.  P.Ws.1 and 2 went near Sundaramoorthy, where he was cut and
\non examining him, found him dead.  P.W.1  left  the  scene  of  occurrence  to
\nNachiyar  Koil  police  station  and  narrated  the  incident  to  P.W.8,  the
\nSub-Inspector, at 10.00 a.m.  and the Sub-Inspector  asked  P.W.1  to  give  a
\nwritten  complaint  and accordingly, P.W.1 gave a written complaint, detailing
\nthe incident.  The said complaint is Ex.P.1.  On the complaint, Ex.P.1,  P.W.8
\nregistered a  case in Crime No.152 of 1993 against the accused.  A copy of the
\nprinted first  information  report  is  Ex.P.4.    The  express  reports  were
\ndespatched to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  P.W.12, the Circle Inspector of Police of Kumbakonam South
\nCircle,  who  was  also  holding  additional  charge  of Valangiman Circle, on
\nreceipt of  the  information  about  the  registration  of  the  grave  crime,
\nproceeded to  the scene of occurrence and reached it at 11.15 a.m.  and in the
\npresence of P.W.1, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and  drew  a  rough
\nsketch, Ex.P.11.    At about 1.00 p.m., he seized M.O.1, the cycle, M.O.2, the
\nblood-stained bedspread, M.O.3, a lungi, M.O.4, the blood-stained tar portion,
\nM.O.5, the sample tar portion, M.O.6, the blood-stained earth and  M.O.7,  the
\nsample earth,  under  a mahazar, Ex.P.3.  The inquest was conducted between 1.
\n30 p.m.  and 4.30 p.m.  over the body of Sundaramoorthy  in  the  presence  of
\npanchayatdars and  the  inquest  report  is  Ex.P.12.  At the time of inquest,
\nP.Ws.1 to 5 were questioned and their statements were  recorded.    After  the
\ninquest,  the  body  was  handed  over  to  a police constable, P.W.10, with a
\nrequisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  On receipt of the requisition, P.W.11, the Civil Assistant
\nSurgeon attached to Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, conducted autopsy on  the
\nbody of Sundaramoorthy and he found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.   A deep cut injury, right wrist extending from radial end to the ulnar end
\ndorsal aspect.  Both bones in this  area,  deeper  muscles,  and  vessels  and
\nnerves cut totally.   The ventral aspect of the skin left uninjured.  The hand
\nis hanging in it 10 cm.  x 6 cm.  x 4 cm.  The wound is full  of  clotted  and
\ndried blood with mud.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A deep cut in the left arm just below the left elbow, posterior aspect 12
\ncm.  x 10 cm.  Both bones larger vessels and muscles  cut  over  this  region.
\nThe cut forearm is hanging on the left out vertical uninjured skin-horizontal.
\nWound is covered with clotted and dried blood with mud.\n<\/p>\n
3.  A deep cut injury on the left forearm, medial aspect middle 1\/3rd oblique.
\nThe shaft  of  the  ulnar bone and vessels and muscles and nerves seen cut.  8
\ncm.  x 4 cm x 3 cm.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Oblique cut injury 2 cm.  above the previous injury, muscle deep.   4  cm.
\nx 2 cm.  medial aspect.  Clotted blood present.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Extensive cut injury on the left upper arm extending from the middle 1\/3rd
\nupto the axilla, medial aspect.    15  cm.    x 10 cm.  bone deep.  The deeper
\nmuscles cut and hanging from the wound.  Deeper vessels cut.\n<\/p>\n
6.  An extensive cut injury starting from the right side of the neck  about  3
\ncm.  below  and  6 cm.  right, the mentum running left to the back of the neck
\nhorizontal about 20 cm.  with 10 cm.  of breadth in the centre.  The ends  are
\nnarrowed; shape  irregular.    The trachea and oesophagus have been completely
\ncut just above the hyoid bone.  The big vessels and both side of  the  trachea
\nand the  muscles cut.  The head is hanging on the uninjured cervical vertebra.
\nThe wound is full of clotted and dried blood with mud.\n<\/p>\n
7.  A cut injury 2 cm.  below the centre of the previous  injury,  parallel  4
\ncm.  x 2 cm.  muscle deep in the left side of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
8.   A  cut  injury, lower half of the left external ear cutting it into two 5
\ncm.  horizontal.\n<\/p>\n
9.  A cut injury in the left post auricular region upper half horizontal 8 cm.
\nx 4 cm.  the deeper temporal bone is severed superficially.\n<\/p>\n
10.  A cut injury on the left side  of  face  horizontal  extending  from  the
\nlateral wall of  left orbit to the left ear injury middle.  Skin deep 6 cm.  x
\n1\/2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
11.  A curved cut injury on the centre of the frontal  aspect  of  the  scalp.
\nA-P.  Bone deep 4 cm.  x 2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Cut  injury  right  side of the frontal region, horizontal 4 cm.  x 2 cm.
\nbone deep.\n<\/p>\n
13.  A gapping cut injury on the right side of the occipito  parietal  region,
\nhorizontal 6 cm.  x 8 cm.  bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
14.   A spindle shaped injury on the right scapular region, muscle deep, 2 cm.
\nx 1 cm.  x 2 cm.  horizontal.\n<\/p>\n
15.  A spindle shaped cut injury just 1 cm.  below the previous injury oblique
\n3 cm.  x 2 cm.  x 2 cm.  muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
16.  A cut injury 1 cm.  below the previous injury, vertical 3 cm.   x  1  cm.
\nmuscle deep.  All in the right scapular region.\n<\/p>\n
17.   A  cut  injury centre of the occipital region vertical in direction bone
\ndeep  6 cm.  x 2 cm.  The occipital bone injuries superficially.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion  that
\nthe  deceased  Sundaramoorthy  died on account of asphyxia due to tracheal cut
\nand shock due to extensive haemorrhage due to the cut to  the  bigger  vessels
\nand the death would have occurred about 10 hours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   P.W.12,  continuing  with  his  investigation, questioned
\nP.W.6, 7, 10 and others and  recorded  their  statements.    He  directed  the
\nSubInspector, P.W.8,  to  make arrangements to arrest the accused.  M.Os.8 and
\n9, the clothes of the deceased, produced by P.W.10, were seized under Form  95
\nand  further  investigation  was  taken up by P.W.13, the Inspector of Police,
\nValangiman Circle, on 11.3.93.  P.W.13, on  taking  up  investigation  in  the
\ncrime,  verified  the  investigation  conducted  by  P.W.12 and on 12.3.93, he
\nexamined P.W.11 and recorded his statement.    He  questioned  P.Ws.2,  8  and
\nothers on  the  same  day.  On 4.3.93, A-1 and A-4 surrendered before Judicial
\nMagistrate No.2, Kumbakonam and A-3  surrendered  before  the  same  Court  on
\n8.3.93.   A-2  surrendered before Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai on 5.3.93.
\nOn 4.8.93, the material objects were forwarded to Court  with  a  requisition,
\nEx.P.5,  to  send them for analysis and after the completion of investigation,
\nthe final report was filed against the accused on 18.8.93.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   on
\nthe incriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied all the
\nincriminating circumstances.   A-1 filed a written statement, in which, he has
\nstated that there was no injunction against him as claimed  by  P.W.1  in  his
\nevidence and he denied the evidence of P.W.1 that there was enmity between him
\nand  his friends on one side and the family of the deceased on the other side.
\nHe has stated that on 4.3.93, he and A-2 to A-4 did not cut the  deceased  and
\nit  was  not  the season for harvesting tamarind fruits from the tamarind tree
\nand further stated that P.W.4 was working under P.W.1 as a domestic servant in
\nthe house and that he has no properties.  He has further alleged that P.W.4 is
\nthe henchman of P.W.1 and the witnesses  had  come  out  with  false  evidence
\nimplicating him  and  the  other accused in the crime.  He has also alleged in
\nthe said statement that Ex.P.1 was later prepared after  the  arrival  of  the
\npolice officers.  A-2, in his written statement, stated that because he gave a
\nprivate  complaint  against  the deceased on 1.3.93, he has been implicated in
\nthe crime.  D.W.1 was examined by the accused to show  that  on  the  date  of
\nincident, he  was  proceeding  in  a  cycle  to Marudhanallur at 5.00 a.m.  to
\nharvest paddy and along with him two others were also present.   According  to
\nhim,  he saw the dead body of Sundaramoorthy near the temple and found several
\ncut  injuries  on  the  dead  body  and  that  on  seeing  the  dead  body  of
\nSundaramoorthy,  he  went  and  informed  P.W.1  and thereafter, P.Ws.1, 2 and
\nothers reached the scene of occurrence and that he went away to  Maruthanallur
\nto attend  to  his  job.    In  short,  the  case  of  the defence is that the
\noccurrence had taken place much earlier to 6.00 a.m.  and the witnesses  could
\nnot have been present at the time of occurrence as claimed by them.\n<\/p>\n
                8.    The   learned   respective  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellants\/ accused contend that the occurrence should have been  taken  place
\nmuch earlier to 6.00 a.m.  and there should have been another complaint, which
\nhad been suppressed and the present complaint, Ex.P.1, must have been prepared
\nafter  the arrival of the police officers as suggested to the witnesses by the
\ndefence.  In support of the said plea, the learned counsels drew our attention
\nto the evidence of the witnesses and in particular, to the evidence of  P.W.1,
\nthe father  of the deceased and P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer.  It
\nis their further submission that P.W.7 was unjustifiably treated as hostile by
\nthe prosecution and  the  Presiding  Officer  ought  to  have  considered  the
\nstatement  of  P.W.7  recorded  under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.,  before  he gave
\npermission to the prosecution to treat him as hostile,  since  P.W.7  did  not
\ndetract  from  his  earlier  statement given to the officer and recorded under
\nSection 161 Cr.P.C.  and there is no reason as  to  why  the  prosecution  has
\ntreated him  hostile.    The  learned  counsels further submit that even after
\ntreating the witness as hostile, the question put to P.   W.7  by  the  Public
\nProsecutor and the answer given to the said question only supports the defence
\ntheory  that  the  occurrence  was  not witnessed by anyone and therefore, the
\nevidence of the eye witnesses cannot be accepted.  On the  above  contentions,
\nwe  have  heard  the  learned  Government Advocate and also perused the entire
\nrecorded evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  The case of  the  prosecution,  which  we  have  extracted
\nabove,  shows  that  there was no love-lost between the family of the deceased
\nand A-1 and his friends and a private complaint was also filed by A-2  against
\nthe deceased.    P.W.1,  in  cross-examination,  admitted  that  it  ended  in
\nconviction, though he went on to state that an appeal has been  filed  against
\nthe said  conviction.    The  evidence  of P.W.1 that on account of his taking
\nlease of the temple tank to catch fish, there was a civil suit pending between
\nhim and A-1 is also supported by the  evidence  of  P.W.6,  who  has,  in  his
\nevidence,  stated  that P.W.1 took the temple tank on lease for catching fish.
\nThe facts, therefore, show that there was enmity between the family  of  P.W.1
\nand A-1  and  his  friends.  We are aware that motive is a double-edged weapon
\nand from that alone, the prosecution version cannot be accepted  or  rejected,
\nthough  in  certain  cases,  it  may  help  the Court to find out the truth or
\notherwise of the prosecution version.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  We will now take up the contentions raised by the learned
\nrespective counsel for the appellants\/accused, since the  cause  of  death  of
\nSundaramoorthy is  not  disputed  before  us.    The  said  fact  also  stands
\nestablished through the evidence of the doctor, P.W.11, who conducted  autopsy
\nand who issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate.  According to the doctor,
\ndeath  was  on  account  of  asphyxia  due  to the cut to blood vessels and on
\naccount of shock and haemorrhage due to  excessive  bleeding.    He  has  also
\nstated in  his  evidence that injury No.6 is fatal in nature.  Since the cause
\nof death is not disputed and  as  it  stands  established,  we  have  to  only
\nconsider  whether  the  accused  have  inflicted  the injuries on the deceased
\nSundaramoorthy, leading to his death.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  According to P.W.1, he and his younger son,  P.W.2,  went
\nto  the  tamarind tree, which was north of a temple in the village, to pick up
\ntamarind fruits and according to him, the  deceased  Sundaramoorthy  left  for
\nPalayanallur village  to  engage  agricultural  labourers.   It is his further
\nevidence that while he and P.W.2 were picking  tamarind  fruits,  he  saw  the
\ndeceased  coming  in  a  cycle from east and according to him, A-1 to A-4, who
\nwere  armed  with  aruvals,   ran   towards   the   deceased   and   cut   him
\nindiscriminately,  even  though  the  deceased  attempted to run away from the
\nplace, after receiving the first cut on  his  left  hand.    He  has,  in  his
\nevidence,  further  claimed  that  he left the scene of occurrence and reached
\nNachiyar Koil police station, where he narrated the  incident  to  P.W.8,  the
\nSub-Inspector  and according to him, the said Sub-Inspector wanted him to give
\na written complaint and therefore, he had a complaint drafted through somebody
\nto his dictation and then, handed over the same to P.W.8 at 10.00 a.m.   P.W.8
\nalso,  in his evidence, stated that a complaint was given to him at 10.00 a.m.
\nand he registered a case in Crime No.152 of 1993, though he  would  contradict
\nP.W.1  by  stating that P.W.1 appeared before him with a written complaint and
\nthat he did not ask P.W.1 to  get  a  written  complaint,  when  initially  he
\nappeared before  him  and  narrated  the  incident orally.  This contradiction
\nbetween the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 as to whether the complaint was initially
\ngiven orally and thereafter, a written complaint was handed over by  P.W.1  on
\nthe  directions  of  P.W.8  or  whether  P.W.1 handed over a written complaint
\nwithout a direction from P.W.8  is  not  a  serious  one  to  throw  away  the
\nprosecution  version and the Court has to see whether the witnesses would have
\nbeen present at the time of incident to witness the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  As we stated earlier, the case of the defence is that the
\ndeceased was done to death much earlier in point of time and his dead body was
\nseen by D.W.1  and  that  it  was  he,  who  went  and  informed  P.W.1,  who,
\nthereafter,  proceeded  to  the  scene of occurrence taking along with him his
\nson, P.W.2 and other villagers.  In this background, we have to  consider  the
\nevidence of  the witnesses.  P.W.1 has admitted in cross-examination that when
\nhe  was  examined  by  the  investigating  officer  during   the   course   of
\ninvestigation,  he  told  him  that  he  informed  the  Village Administrative
\nOfficer, P.W.7  and  thereafter,  proceeded  to  the  police  station.    This
\nadmission  of P.W.1 that he informed the investigating officer at the earliest
\npoint of time that an information was given to P.W.7 indicates that P.W.7 came
\nto know about the incident from P.W.1.  P.W.1 has also admitted that after the
\noccurrence, which took place at 6.00 a.m., he was  present  at  the  scene  of
\noccurrence till  about  9.00  or  9.30  a.m.   and thereafter, he left for the
\npolice station and reached it within 10 or  15  minutes,  where  he  gave  the
\ncomplaint.  He has admitted in cross-examination that he not only informed the
\nVillage  Administrative Officer, but also his relatives about the incident and
\nthat thereafter, he went to the police station to  give  a  complaint.    This
\nevidence  of  P.W.1,  therefore,  shows that he was at the scene of occurrence
\ntill about 9.00 or 9.30 a.m.  and before he left for the  police  station,  he
\ninformed  not  only the Village Administrative Officer, but also the relatives
\nand the villagers about the incident.  Keeping this in mind, we will now  look
\nat the evidence of P.W.7.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   It is, no doubt, true that P.W.7 was treated hostile and
\nwe find no reason as to why the trial Court gave permission to the prosecution
\nto treat him hostile, since he did not detract from his  statement  given  and
\nrecorded under Section  161  Cr.P.C.   by the investigating officer.  After he
\nwas treated hostile, a question was put by the Public  Prosecutor  whether  he
\nquestioned  the  persons  present  at  the  scene  of occurrence as to how the
\noccurrence had taken place and that they refused to give any details  to  him.
\nP.W.7 has admitted that he said so to the investigating officer.  This was the
\nonly  question  that was put to P.W.7, after he was treated hostile and he was
\nnot confronted with any other statement made by him at  an  earlier  point  of
\ntime, when  he  was  examined  during  the  course  of  investigation.  In the
\ninterest of justice, we also perused the original statement  of  the  witness,
\nP.W.7.   The  said  statement  given  by  him and the evidence given by him in
\nchief-examination are one and the same and we are at a loss to  understand  as
\nto  how  and  why  the Presiding Officer gave permission to the prosecution to
\ntreat him as hostile and we are also  unable  to  understand  as  to  why  the
\nprosecution wanted  this  witness  to  be  treated  as  hostile.  This remains
\nunexplained.  Be that as it may.  P.W.7 has stated in  his  evidence  that  at
\nabout  8.00  a.m., when he was in his house, he received the information about
\nthe occurrence and that within five  minutes,  he  reached  the  scene  place.
\nAccording  to  him,  on reaching the scene of occurrence, he tried to find out
\nwhether any of the relatives of the deceased are available and  he  found  one
\nSatyamoorthy  standing and crying there and added that he did not see P.W.2 at
\nthe place.  He has also stated that the other relatives of the  deceased  were
\nthere and they were seen crying and that no one gave him any information as to
\nhow  Sundaramoorthy  met  with his end and that therefore, he sent a report to
\nTahsildar, Kumbakonam and also informed the police officer over  phone.    The
\nevidence of P.W.7, therefore, shows that he reached the scene of occurrence by
\n8.00 or  8.15 a.m.  and made enquiries with the relatives of the deceased, who
\nwere seen crying there and they could not give any definite information as  to
\nhow the occurrence had taken place and that P.W.2 was not seen at that place.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   At  this juncture, we have to recollect the answer given
\nby P.W.1 in cross-examination that he left the scene of occurrence only  at  9
\n.00 or  9.30  a.m.    for  the  police  station and also the recitals found in
\nEx.P.1.   P.W.1  has  admitted  that  he  gave  information  to  the   Village
\nAdministrative  Officer  and  also informed the relatives about the occurrence
\nand thereafter, left the place for the police station, which means that  P.W.1
\nwas present  at  the scene of occurrence till about 9.30 a.m.  and that he not
\nonly informed the  Village  Administrative  Officer,  but  also  informed  the
\nrelatives  about  the  occurrence and thereafter, left for the police station.
\nIf P.W.1 was an eye witness to the incident, then P.W.7, who reached the place
\non getting information about the occurrence by  8.00  a.m.,  would  have  been
\ninformed  by  the  relatives  including  P.W.1, who was present, as to how the
\ndeceased met with his end.  At this juncture, it is to be remembered  that  in
\nEx.P.1  ,  it  is  found  mentioned  by P.W.1 that he has informed the Village
\nAdministrative Officer and other  relatives  about  the  occurrence  and  that
\nthereafter, he  has  reached  the  police station to give the complaint.  This
\nshows that the said complaint, Ex.P.1, must have been drafted much later.  The
\npresent evidence of P.W.1 is at variance not only with his  earlier  statement
\nmade in  Ex.P.1, but also with the evidence of P.W.7.  In this background, the
\nanswer given by P.W.7 that he was not given any definite information as to how
\nthe deceased met with his  end  and  that  P.W.2  was  not  at  the  scene  of
\noccurrence,  though  other  relatives  were  seen  standing  and crying there,
\ntherefore, shows that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who supported the prosecution  version,
\ncould not  have  been present and witnessed the incident.  P.Ws.3 and 5 having
\nturned hostile and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 having been rejected by  us
\nfor  the reasons given above, we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of
\nthe appellants\/accused and therefore, they are given the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  In the result, the conviction and sentence  imposed  upon
\nthe appellants\/accused  are  set  aside and they are acquitted.  The appeal is
\nallowed.  It is reported that the appellants\/accused are on bail.    The  bail
\nbonds executed by them shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
sra<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.\n<\/p>\n
3.-do- Thro’ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
4.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Director General of Police, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
8.The Inspector of Police, Valangiman Circle.\n<\/p>\n
9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02\/09\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1995 1. Mohandoss 2. Mohandoss 3. Govindaraj 4. Raj Kannu … Appellants -Vs- State, rep. by Inspector of […]<\/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-196590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - 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\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-16T16:38:31+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\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T16:38:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3891,\"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\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T16:38:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - 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\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-16T16:38:31+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\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T16:38:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003"},"wordCount":3891,"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\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003","name":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T16:38:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandoss-vs-state-on-2-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohandoss vs State on 2 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/196590","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=196590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}