{"id":261507,"date":"2010-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-01-24T15:24:16","modified_gmt":"2014-01-24T09:54:16","slug":"muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 5\/7\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.373 of 2009\nand\nCRL.A.(MD) No.374 of 2009\nand\nCRL.R.C.(MD) No.3 of 2010\n\n1.Muthu\n2.Nagasamy\n3.Srinivasan\n4.Murugan @ Balamurugan\n5.Pandi\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t\t   CA 373\/2009\n\nP.Kumaresan\t\t\t\t.. Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t   CA 374\/2009\n\nvs\n\nState through\nThe Inspector of Police\nAnna Nagar PS\nMadurai District\nIn Cr.No.734\/07\t\t\t\t.. Respondent in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   both appeals<\/p>\n
CRL.R.C.No.3\/2010<\/p>\n
Marisamy\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in<\/p>\n
vs<\/p>\n
1.Muniyasamy\n<\/p>\n
2.Shanmugavel\n<\/p>\n
3.Selvam\n<\/p>\n
4.State rep. by
\n  The Inspector of Police
\n  E3 Anna Nagar (Law and Order)
\n  Cr.No.734\/07
\n  Madurai District\t\t\t.. Respondents<\/p>\n
\tCriminal appeals preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
\nFTC No.III, Madurai, made in S.C.Nos.132 of 2008 and 285 of 2008 dated
\n30.9.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\tCriminal Revision Case preferred under Sec.401 read with 397 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC
\nNo.III, Madurai, made in S.C.No.132 of 2008 dated 30.9.2009 in respect of the
\nrespondents 1 to 3\/A-7, A-8 and A-10.<\/p>\n
\n\n!For Appellants  ...  Mr.N.Natarajan\nin both appeals\t      Senior Counsel\n& respondents\t      for Mr.C.Arulvadivel\n1 to 3 in \t      alias Sekar\nCrl.RC\n\nFor Petitioner\t ...  Mr.R.Venkateswaran\n^For Respondent\nin both appeals\n& 4th respondent\nin Crl.RC\t ...  Mr.K.N.Pandi Durai\n\t\t      Additional Public\n\t\t      Prosecutor\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern both these appeals namely Crl.A.Nos.373 and 374
\nof 2009 whereby A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-8 in S.C.No.132 of 2008 and also A-2 in
\nS.C.No.285 of 2008 have challenged a judgment of the Additional Sessions
\nDivision, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, whereby they along with A-10 stood
\ncharged as follows:\n<\/p>\n
ACCUSED                        CHARGES\n\nA-1 to A-6 & A-10            148 of IPC<\/a>\nA-1 to A-6                   302 of IPC<\/a>\nA-10                      302 read with 149 IPC<\/a>\nA-7 & A-8                 302 read with 109 IPC<\/a>\nA-1 to A-9                   120(B) IPC<\/a>\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t2.On trial, A-1 to A-6 were found guilty under Sections 148<\/a> and 302<\/a> of IPC
\nand were sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.148 of
\nIPC<\/a> and to undergo life imprisonment under Sec.302 of IPC<\/a>, while A-7, A-8 and A-
\n10 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. A-1 to A-6 were
\nacquitted of the charge under Sec.120(B) IPC<\/a>. The revision case has been brought
\nforth by the de-facto complainant challenging that part of order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals and the
\nrevision case can be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.Ws.1 and 6 are the parents of the deceased Manikandan.  One year
\nprior to the occurrence, there was a proposal for the marriage of A-3 with the
\ndaughter of the co-brother of P.W.1 who is examined as P.W.5.  When the said
\nproposal was rejected by the family of P.Ws.1 and 6, the families were on
\ninimical terms.  An incident had taken place on 2.6.2006, in which A-1 was
\nassaulted by the deceased, and a case came to be registered by Pudur Police
\nStation in Crime No.562 of 2006 pursuant to which the parties continued to have
\ntheir enmity.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 3.6.2007, when P.W.1 and his
\nwife P.W.6 were in the house, P.W.2, the brother-in-law of P.W.1, rushed over
\nthere and informed them that when he was coming across the bazaar near Anna
\nStatue, he found A-1 to A-8 in an assembly, and A-7 was telling that from the
\ntime of the earlier occurrence, one year was over, and if not the deceased was
\nput an end, it would be a dishonour to the family, and hence something should be
\ndone immediately. The same view was concurred by A-8.  In reply, A-1 to A-6 told
\nthem that they need not bother about the same, and they would come with a good
\nnews.  Then P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 took his car driven by the driver, and
\nwhen they were just coming on the way, they found P.Ws.3 and 4 rushing in the
\nopposite direction, and they enquired them.  P.Ws.3 and 4 informed that the son
\nof P.W.1 Manikandan was being attacked by number of persons.  Then P.W.1 asked
\nhis driver to take the car with high speed, and the car was just moving near
\nRace Course Road, when P.Ws.1 and 2 found A-1 to A-4 and A-6 armed with aruvals
\nand A-2 with a sword and were attacking him indiscriminately.  They were able to
\nsee the occurrence from the street light and also with the help of the car light
\nsince they were inside the car. Then A-1 to A-6 fled away from the place of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 got down from the car and when P.W.1 lifted
\nManikandan, he found him dead. He immediately rushed to the respondent police
\nstation and gave Ex.P1, the report, to P.W.17, the Inspector of Police.  On the
\nstrength of Ex.P1, the complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.734 of 2007
\nunder Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 302<\/a> and 120(B)<\/a> of IPC.  The printed FIR,
\nEx.P20, was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) The Inspector of Police who registered the case, took up
\ninvestigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an
\nobservation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P21. Then he recovered
\nthe bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.  He
\nconducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and
\npanchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P22.
\nFollowing the same, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the
\npurpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) P.W.12, the Reader in Forensic Medicine & Office of District Police
\nSurgeon, Madurai Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, conducted
\nautopsy on the dead body of Manikandan and has found 13 external injuries.  The
\nDoctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P14, with his opinion that the
\ndeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to external
\ninjuries 01 – 05 and its corresponding internal injuries and cumulative effect
\nof all other injuries, 8 – 12 hours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) Pending the investigation, A-1, A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 5.6.2007,
\nwhen they came forward to give confessional statements.  They were recorded in
\nthe presence of witnesses. They are marked as Exs.P4, 6 and 8 respectively, and
\nthree aruvals were recovered from them under a cover of mahazar.  Further A-6
\nwas arrested on 11.6.2007.  He also gave a confessional statement, the same was
\nrecorded.  A-10 who surrendered on 7.6.2007, was taken into police custody, and
\nhe gave a confessional statement voluntarily.  A-7 surrendered before the Court
\non 15.6.2007.  That apart, on 10.9.2007, A-2 was taken into police custody, and
\nhe volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded.  The
\nadmissible part is marked as Ex.P28. A-5 surrendered before the Judicial
\nMagistrate’s Court and a confessional statement was recorded from him while he
\nwas in police custody.  All the accused were sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) A requisition was made by the Investigator to the concerned Judicial
\nMagistrate for putting forth all the material objects for chemical analysis, and
\naccordingly they were subjected to, which has brought forth two reports namely
\nEx.P25, the chemical analyst’s report, and Ex.P26, the serologist’s report.
\nP.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion
\nof the same, filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.After the charge sheet was filed against 10 accused, A-9 was absconding.
\nUnder the circumstances, the case was split up in respect of A-9.  After the
\ncase was taken on file, A-3 was absconding.  Then the case was split up in his
\nregard, and as far as the other accused are concerned, it was taken in
\nS.C.No.132 of 2008.  So far as A-3 was concerned, he was secured before the
\ntrial was commenced, and it was taken in S.C.No.285 of 2008.  Both the cases
\nwere taken up jointly for trial, and necessary charges were framed. In order to
\nsubstantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied
\non 29 exhibits and 17 material objects.  On completion of the evidence on the
\nside of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C<\/a>. as
\nto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution
\nwitnesses which they flatly denied as false.  No defence witness was examined.
\nThe trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view
\nthat the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of
\nA-1 to A-6 under Sections 148<\/a> and 302<\/a> of IPC and hence found them guilty and
\nawarded the punishment as referred to above.  Hence these appeals at the
\ninstance of the appellants.  Aggrieved over the part of acquittal of A-7, A-8
\nand A-10, the de-facto complainant has brought forth the criminal revision case
\nbefore the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior
\nCounsel Mr.N.Natarajan would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution
\ncame out with the story that when P.W.2 was going in a bazaar, he found all the
\naccused persons hatching up a conspiracy, and he immediately came to the house
\nand informed his brother-in-law P.W.1 about the conspiracy; that the trial Judge
\nwas not ready to believe the evidence of P.W.2 for two reasons; that firstly,
\nthe conspiracy could not have taken place in a public place like bazaar as put
\nforth by P.W.2 and secondly there was a vital discrepancy between the statement
\nrecorded by the Investigator under Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C<\/a>. and the evidence before
\nthe trial Court; that the trial Judge has rightly rejected the conspiracy
\ntheory; that it is pertinent to point out that the prosecution has rested its
\nentire case mainly on the conspiracy spoken to by P.W.2 through whom conspiracy
\nwas put forth; that in such circumstances, the trial Judge should have
\ndisbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 in toto, but has erroneously accepted the
\nevidence of P.W.2 that he has given the information; that apart from that, the
\nevidence of P.W.2 could not be believed for more reasons than one; that P.W.6 is
\nthe wife of P.W.1; that according to her, she was actually in the house; but the
\nentire narration as spoken to by P.W.2 has not even been whispered by P.W.6 in
\nher evidence, and thus it would clearly indicate that P.W.2 has been a planted
\nwitness; that if the evidence of P.W.2 was not to be believed, then no question
\nof believing the evidence of P.W.1 would arise; that had P.W.2 not informed
\nP.W.1 about the conspiracy, there is no reason for P.W.1 going out of the house
\nalong with P.W.2 in his car by taking the driver; that actually the alleged
\ndriver who drove the car, has not been examined by the prosecution; that
\naccording to the witnesses, when they were proceeding, they found P.Ws.3 and 4
\non the way who were coming in the opposite direction, and who informed P.Ws.1
\nand 2 that the son of P.W.1 Manikandan was being attacked indiscriminately by so
\nmany persons; and that it is unfortunate for the prosecution that P.Ws.3 and 4
\nhave turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that it is pertinent to point
\nout that such an occurrence could not have been witnessed by them at all; that
\naccording to P.W.2, the occurrence has taken place just 500 meters away when
\nthey were actually proceeding in the car, and it has taken place at about 11.00
\nP.M. on 3.6.2007; that it is nearly about 3 or 4 furlongs; that under the
\ncircumstances, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence during night
\nhours; that even the street light is also situated away from the place; that
\nwith the help of street light also, they could not have seen the occurrence;
\nthat according to P.W.2, immediately he gave a phone call to the Control Room at
\n11.50 P.M., but no records were forthcoming, and thereafter, he gave the
\ncomplaint to the police at 0030 hours on 4.6.2007; that there was a delay of 1
\nhour and 30 minutes from the time of occurrence; that the police station is also
\nsituated within one kilometer from the place of occurrence; that such a delay
\ncoupled with the fact that they could not have seen the occurrence as stated
\nabove would go a long way to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the
\noccurrence at all; that the person who registered the case namely the
\nInvestigator, has stated that who wrote the FIR and who wrote Ex.P1, he did not
\nknow; that P.W.1 is the author of Ex.P1; but he differs at number of places as
\nto by whom it was written; that the delay that was caused in giving the report
\nand the way in which the report Ex.P1, has come into existence both put together
\nwould go to show that Ex.P1 could not have come into existence in time; and that
\nit would also further speak about the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen
\nthe occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned Senior Counsel would further urge that as far as the
\nrecovery of weapons of crime was concerned, the trial Judge should have
\ndisbelieved that part of the evidence in toto for two reasons; that firstly,
\nonly one sword was actually recovered from the place of occurrence which is
\nalleged to have been used by A-5; that as far as A-1 to A-4 and A-6 were
\nconcerned, all of them wielded aruvals according to the witnesses; that
\naccording to the Investigator, all have produced the weapons of crime, and they
\nwere recovered in the presence of witnesses; but it is a matter of surprise to
\nnote that the weapons were recovered after a few days; that the Investigator has
\nspoken to the fact that they were actually keeping all the weapons in their
\nbody; that all are big and lengthy weapons; that in such circumstances, it is
\nquite unnatural for anybody keeping the weapons attached with the body after a
\nnumber of days; that apart from that, as far as all the weapons were concerned,
\nthey were actually sent for chemical analysis except the sword, which, according
\nto the witnesses, was wielded by A-5, and no one weapon was found to be with
\nhuman blood, and hence they were not actually put forth for serology test; that
\nall would go to show that if they were actually cutting the deceased
\nindiscriminately with those weapons, they should have definitely contained with
\nhuman blood, but no human blood was found; and that all would go to show that
\nthe recovery was actually introduced for the purpose of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that as far as P.Ws.1 and 2 are
\nconcerned, they have given complete narration speaking of the injuries when
\ntheir statements were recorded by the Investigator under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C<\/a>., but
\nwhen they came before the Court, they have not narrated even one injury, and
\ninstead, they have repeatedly spoken that the accused caused injuries
\nindiscriminately; that all would go to show that these two witnesses could not
\nhave seen the occurrence at all; that the delay coupled with the above facts
\nwould go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case;
\nbut, the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence they are entitled
\nfor acquittal in the hands of this Court which the trial Judge has failed to do.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the
\nabove contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The Court heard the learned Counsel Mr.R.Venkateswaran who argued the
\nrevision case.  According to him, the trial Judge has acquitted the respondents
\n1 to 3 erroneously, and as far as the discrepancy noticed by the trial Judge
\nbetween the statements given by the witnesses to the Investigator and also the
\nevidence before the Court is concerned, that by itself cannot be a reason to
\nreject the conspiracy theory or acquit them, and under the circumstances, the
\norder or acquittal has got to be set aside, and they have got to be dealt with
\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.This Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and
\nlooked into all the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.It is not in controversy that one Manikandan, the son of P.Ws.1 and 6,
\nwas done to death in an incident that took place at 11.00 P.M. on 3.6.2007. The
\ndead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor, following the
\nrequisition made by the Investigator who conducted the inquest on the dead body.
\nThe postmortem Doctor has categorically deposed that he died out of shock and
\nhaemorrhage due to external injuries 01 – 05 and its corresponding internal
\ninjuries and cumulative effect of all other injuries.  The fact that Manikandan
\ndied out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the
\ntrial Court, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In order to substantiate the theory of conspiracy and also the incident
\nthat had taken place at 11.00 P.M. on 3.6.2007, in which Manikandan was put an
\nend, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5.
\nUnfortunately, P.Ws.3 and 4 have turned hostile.  According to P.W.2, he was
\nactually proceeding in the bazaar, and at that time, he found all the accused
\npersons standing in the opposite side, and they were hatching up a conspiracy,
\nand after hearing the same, he rushed home and informed to P.W.1, and thereafter
\nP.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 went in the Car driven by the Driver.  True it is,
\nthe learned trial Judge has disbelieved the theory of conspiracy as spoken to by
\nP.W.1. On perusal of the materials available and also the judgment under
\nchallenge, this Court has to necessarily agree with the learned trial Judge who
\nrejected the conspiracy theory. At this juncture, the contentions put forth by
\nthe learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted, and that
\npart of the judgment has got to be affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Insofar as the part of crime alleged to have been committed by A-1 to
\nA-6, now the case of the prosecution is that on being informed by P.W.2, P.W.1
\naccompanied by him went in his car, and while they were proceeding, P.Ws.3 and 4
\nwere coming in the opposite direction, and they informed them that Manikandan
\nwas being attacked by number of persons, and then P.W.1 asked his driver to take
\nthe car speedily, and accordingly, they were proceeding near Race Course Road,
\nwhere they found all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons namely A-1 to
\nA-4 and A-6 with aruvals and A-5 with sword, and indiscriminately attacking him,
\nand both of them were witnessing the same from inside the car.  The trial Judge
\nhas believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the other attending
\ncircumstances in the evidence to take a decision that the prosecution has proved
\nthat there was an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Manikandan
\nand in furtherance of the same, they have acted so and caused his death, and
\nhence found them guilty for those offences.  On scrutiny of the evidence
\navailable, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge
\nhas taken a correct view in coming to the conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.According to P.Ws.1 and 6, they were actually in the house at about
\n10.00 P.M., and at that time P.W.2 came over there and informed that their son
\nManikandan was about to be attacked.  According to P.W.6 wife, her husband P.W.1
\nleft the house along with her brother P.W.2.  She has categorically stated that
\nwithin 10 minutes from the time of information, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2 left
\nthe house, and within half an hour she received information that her son was
\nmurdered.  Thus the evidence of P.W.6 inspired the confidence of the Court.
\nThat apart, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken in one voice that they proceeded from the
\nplace, and while they were going in the car, they found P.Ws.3 and 4 coming in
\nthe opposite direction, and they informed them that Manikandan was being
\nattacked.  Both of them have spoken to the fact that the Driver was asked to
\ntake the car speedily, and when they were just proceeding at the Race Course
\nRoad, they found six persons indiscriminately cutting the deceased Manikandan.
\nNow the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that P.Ws.1
\nand 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all, and according to P.W.2, even
\nthe light post was actually situated  away, and they were proceeding just about
\n500 meters away from the place of occurrence.  This Court is of the considered
\nopinion that these measurements given by him that they saw the occurrence from
\n500 meters away and the contention that they could not have seen the occurrence
\ncannot be given importance at all.  There are two documents available to
\nindicate that the occurrence has taken place in a place where there were
\nsufficient light.  They are Ex.P21, the rough sketch, wherein two light posts
\nare shown on the one side situated within 15 feet and on the other side situated
\nwithin 30 feet, and Ex.P2, the observation mahazar, would clearly indicate that
\nthe occurrence has taken place just in front of the Government Press, and sodium
\nlamp post is also found therein.  Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were actually sitting in the
\ncar.  It is not their evidence that they have got down from the Car to see the
\noccurrence, but from inside the car, they have witnessed the occurrence.  As far
\nas the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, the trial Judge has properly
\nmarshalled that there is nothing to find fault with.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Apart from the above, the evidence of these witnesses has got to be
\ntaken as true and genuine since other circumstances are also noticed.  The
\noccurrence has taken place at about 11.00 P.M. and the eyewitnesses were under
\nthe grip.  Even then they have immediately phoned over to the Control Room at
\nabout 11.50 P.M., and it is actually mentioned in Ex.P1, the complaint.
\nThereafter they rushed to the respondent police station which is situated within
\n1 kilometre, and the complaint was given.  The case was registered at about 0030
\nhours, and the FIR along with Ex.P1 also reached the Judicial Magistrate at
\nabout 2.30 A.M. on 4.6.2007.  As regards the comment made by the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the appellants that there was a delay, this Court is unable to
\ncountenance the same since the occurrence has taken place at 11.00 P.M., and the
\ninformation was given to the control room at 11.50 P.M., and the complaint,
\nEx.P1, was given at the police station at 12.30 A.M., and the FIR has reached
\nthe Magistrate at about 2.30 A.M.  All would indicate the fact that without
\ndelay the case has been registered.  The other comment made by the learned
\nSenior Counsel is that the eyewitnesses have given a clear narration and
\naccounting of the cuts at the time when they were interrogated by the police
\nunder Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C<\/a>.; but when they came before the Court, they could not
\ngive description, and they have spoken that all the accused persons armed with
\ndeadly weapons indiscriminately attacked the deceased.  Now, at this juncture,
\nit is pertinent to point out that when the occurrence has taken place at about
\n11.00 P.M. and that too when the son of P.W.1 was being attacked
\nindiscriminately by number of persons, and that too when they were actually
\nsitting in the car, no question of narration or accounting would arise.  Even if
\nsuch accounting is given, it would cast a doubt upon the same.  It is not in
\ncontroversy that all the accused persons were already known to P.Ws.1 and 2.
\nAll would go to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the occurrence because of which
\nthey were able to narrate the same.  Now, at this juncture, by whom Ex.P1
\ncomplaint was written is not material.  But what is material is whether Ex.P1
\ncomplaint contains the necessary particulars.  Now Ex.P1 complaint contains the
\ntime, place of occurrence, the assailants and also the eyewitnesses who have
\nactually been in the place of occurrence.  Now the contentions put forth by the
\nlearned Senior Counsel in that regard are liable to be rejected and accordingly,
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that insofar as the recovery
\npart is concerned, it is highly artificial.  This Court has to necessarily agree
\nwith the learned Senior Counsel.  All the accused, according to the
\nInvestigator, were arrested on 5.6.2007 and 10.6.2007 respectively, and they
\nwere found to be in possession of the lethal weapons which were big and lengthy.
\nThe fact that these weapons were hidden in their body cannot be believed.  Added
\ncircumstance to disbelieve that part is that no one weapon contained human
\nblood, and that part of the evidence of the prosecution should have been
\nrejected.  At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in a given case like
\nthis, even if the Court is unable to agree with the evidence of the prosecution
\nwith regard to the recovery following the confessional statement, it is not
\nnecessary that the prosecution case should be disbelieved.  In the case on hand,
\neven barring the confession and recovery of the weapons of crime, this Court is
\nable to see that there is sufficient evidence for the prosecution to indicate
\nthat there was an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of
\nA-1 to A-6 to kill Manikandan, they have acted so.  Further the occurrence has
\ntaken place at 11.00 P.M. in a solitary place where Manikandan was being cut
\nindiscriminately by A-1 to A-6 at the time and place of occurrence, and unless
\nand until there was a common object in furtherance of which A-1 to A-6 have
\nacted so, they could not have committed the offence.  All would go to show that
\nit was with the common object and in furtherance of killing him, they have acted
\nso and caused his death.  It remains to be stated that the evidence of P.Ws.1
\nand 2 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.  Though the prosecution
\nwas unable to stand on its evidence regarding confession and recovery and
\nscientific evidence, the prosecution has proved the case by resting the same on
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 and also the medical evidence adduced which, in the considered
\nopinion of the Court, would suffice for bringing home the guilt of the accused
\nas one done by the prosecution before the trial Court. Under the circumstances,
\nthis Court is unable to agree with the contentions put forth by the learned
\nSenior Counsel for the appellants.  Accordingly, they are rejected. The trial
\nJudge was perfectly correct in finding them guilty under Sections 148<\/a> and 302<\/a> of
\nIPC. The judgment of the trial Court is factually and legally found to be
\ncorrect.  Accordingly both these criminal appeals fail, and they are dismissed
\nconfirming the judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Equally, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the
\nrevision petitioner, in view of the reasons as stated above, cannot be accepted,
\nand they are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.  Hence the criminal
\nrevision case is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
nsv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge
\n  FTC No.III, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n  Anna Nagar PS
\n  Madurai District
\n  In Cr.No.734\/07\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n  Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 5\/7\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY CRL.A.(MD) No.373 of 2009 and CRL.A.(MD) No.374 of 2009 and CRL.R.C.(MD) No.3 of 2010 1.Muthu 2.Nagasamy 3.Srinivasan 4.Murugan @ Balamurugan 5.Pandi .. Appellants in […]<\/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-261507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - 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-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-24T09:54:16+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=\"23 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-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-24T09:54:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4486,\"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-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-24T09:54:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - 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-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-24T09:54:16+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-24T09:54:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010"},"wordCount":4486,"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-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010","name":"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-24T09:54:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-vs-state-through-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthu vs State Through on 5 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/261507","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=261507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}