{"id":269611,"date":"2008-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-28T10:55:01","modified_gmt":"2017-08-28T05:25:01","slug":"s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 04\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.515 of 2007\nCRL.A.(MD) Nos.525, 641 and 656 of 2007\n\n1.S.Jimmi Pandi\n2.Muthaiah @ Prabhu\t\t\t\t.. Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   CA 515\/2007\n\nVeerapandi @ Bathri Pandi\t\t\t.. Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   CA 525\/2007\n\nKali alias Kaliappan\t\t\t\t.. Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   CA 641\/2007\n\nKannan alias Kuttai Kannan\t\t\t.. Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   CA 656\/2007\n\n\nvs\n\n\nThe State rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police\nSilaiman Police Station\nMadurai\n(Crime No.181\/2005)\t\t\t\t.. Respondent in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   all appeals<\/p>\n
\tCriminal appeals preferred under Sec.374 of Cr.P.C<\/a>. against the judgment
\nof the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, made in S.C.No.126 of
\n2007 dated 30.8.2007.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellants in
\nCA 515\/2007 \t\t…  Mr.A.P.Muthupandian<\/p>\n
For Appellant in
\nCA 525\/2007 \t\t…  Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh<\/p>\n
For Appellant in
\nCA 641\/2007 \t\t…  Mr.V.S.Balakrishnan<\/p>\n
For Appellant in
\nCA 656\/2007 \t\t…  Mr.A.Jeyaram<\/p>\n
^For Respondent\t\t…  Mr.V.Kasinathan
\n\t\t\t     Additional Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern these four appeals in C.A.No.515\/2007 by A-1
\nand A-5, C.A.No.525\/2007 by A-4, C.A.No.641\/2007 by A-6 and C.A.No.656\/2007 by
\nA-2.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.All the above appeals challenge the judgment of the Principal Sessions
\nDivision, Madurai, made in S.C.No.126 of 2007 whereby these appellants stood
\ncharged i.e., A-1 to A-5 under Sec.148 IPC<\/a>, A-6 under Sec.147 IPC<\/a> and A-1 to A-6
\nunder Sec.302 read with 34 IPC<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.On trial, A-1 to A-5 were found guilty under Sec.148 IPC<\/a> and awarded one
\nyear Rigorous Imprisonment.  A-6 was found guilty under Sec.147 IPC<\/a> and
\nsentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. A-1 to A-6 were found
\nguilty under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC<\/a> and awarded life imprisonment along with a
\nfine of Rs.1000\/- and default sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased Mahalingam, while P.W.2 is
\nthe brother-in-law.  The deceased was running a parota stall in Indira Nagar,
\nLKB Nagar Bus Stop.  On 20.2.2005, the marriage function of P.W.1 was held.  On
\n13.3.2005, the close relations of P.W.1 came to his house to attend certain
\ncustomary function.  After the function was over, there was a quarrel between A-
\n1 and the deceased.  At that time, A-1 threatened the deceased “you would live
\nor I would live”.  P.W.1 was informed about the same.  The matter was not
\nbrought to the notice of the police since it was a function in P.W.1’s house,
\nand the incident has taken place at that time.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) On 14.3.2005 at about 9.45 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased went to
\nthe parota stall of the deceased for cleaning work since the shop was kept
\nclosed for a few days earlier.  At about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was just
\nsleeping on a cement pial situated at Saravana Telephone Boothe, both P.Ws.1 and
\n2 were actually doing cleaning work.  At that time, A-1 to A-6 and others armed
\nwith deadly weapons, came over there and began to attack the deceased.  P.Ws.1
\nand 2 on hearing the distressing cry, came out.  Immediately, all the accused
\nattempted to stop a running bus and tried to get in; but, they could not.  At
\nthat time, the deceased who was attacked by the accused, woke up, and on seeing
\nthis, they came back and all of them attacked him indiscriminately.  He
\nsuccumbed to the injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) P.W.1 proceeded to Silaiman Police Station, the respondent herein, and
\nhas given an oral complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, which was
\nreduced into writing. The said complaint is Ex.P1, on the strength of which a
\ncase came to be registered at 23.45 hours in Crime No.181 of 2005 under Sections
\n147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 306<\/a> and 302<\/a> of IPC.  The printed FIR, Ex.P31, was sent to the Court
\nand reached the Magistrate by 1.30 a.m.  A message was given through VHF to the
\nInspector of Police concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy
\nof the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in
\nthe presence of witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P32, and a
\nrough sketch, Ex.P33.  The photographs were caused to be taken.  M.O.9,
\nbloodstained earth, and M.O.10, sample earth, and other material objects were
\nrecovered from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.  Then, the
\nInvestigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Mahalingam in the presence of
\nwitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P35.  A
\nrequisition, Ex.P2, was given to the hospital authorities for the conduct of
\nautopsy on the dead body.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) P.W.3, the Professor of Forensic Medicine and District Police Surgeon,
\nMadurai Medical College, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted
\npostmortem on the dead body of Mahalingam and has given a postmortem
\ncertificate, Ex.P3, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have
\ndied of shock and haemorrhage due to external injuries No.1 to 9 and their
\ncorresponding internal injuries and cumulative effect of all other injuries 10
\nto 12 hours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) On 24.3.2005, the Investigator arrested A-1, A-5, A-6 and one
\nManimaran in the presence of P.W.4, the V.A.O., and another witness.  A-1 came
\nforward to give a confessional statement.  The admissible part is marked as
\nEx.P4, pursuant to which, he produced a knife, which was recovered under a cover
\nof mahazar, Ex.P6.  A-5 also gave a confessional statement, pursuant to which he
\nproduced M.O.16, knife, and M.O.7 series, wooden logs, which were recovered
\nunder a cover of mahazar, Ex.P7.  Pending investigation, the Investigator also
\narrested one Kannan and he was also taken to custody.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He
\ncame to know that A-3 and A-4 were actually arrested in connection with Crime
\nNo.1242\/2005 of Teppakulam Police Station, and they were in custody.  They were
\nalso produced before the Court under P.T. warrant, and police custody was asked
\nfor.  It was also ordered. A-3 gave a confessional statement, which was
\nrecorded.  The admissible part is marked as Ex.P8, pursuant to which he produced
\na patta knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.  A-4 has also given
\na confessional statement, which was recorded.  The admissible part is marked as
\nEx.P9.  He produced a patta knife, which was recovered under Ex.P10, the
\nmahazar. On 23.5.2005, the accused Murugesan was arrested, and he gave a
\nconfessional statement, pursuant to which a knife produced by him, was
\nrecovered.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h) The Investigator gave a requisition to the Court for the conduct of
\nidentification parade.  He took A-2, who was arrested in Crime No.1637\/2005 of
\nThideer Nagar Police Station, to police custody.  A-2 has also given a
\nconfessional statement, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.P13.  He
\nproduced an aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P14.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Pursuant to the requisition made, P.W.13, the Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.III, Madurai, conducted the test identification parade on 8.4.2005, where
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 participated.  At that time, P.W.1 identified A-5 and A-6 and one
\nManimaran, and P.W.2 also identified Manimaran, the absconding accused. On
\n7.6.2005, he conducted the identification parade for the second time.  At that
\ntime, P.W.1 identified A-3 and A-4 and one Murugesan.  On 14.7.2005, for the
\nthird time, identification parade was conducted in which P.W.1 identified A-2.
\nThose identification parade proceedings were marked as Exs.P26, P28 and P30
\nrespectively.  Following the same, all the material objects recovered from the
\nplace of occurrence and from the dead body, were sent for chemical analysis.
\nAccordingly, they were subjected to which resulted in two reports namely the
\nChemical Analyst’s report, Ex.P17, and the Serologist’s report, Ex.P18.  On
\ncompletion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were
\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16
\nwitnesses and also relied on 35 exhibits and 17 material objects.  On completion
\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned
\nunder Sec.313 of Cr.P.C<\/a>. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.  No
\ndefence witness was examined.  The Court below heard the arguments advanced,
\ntook the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable
\ndoubts, and found the appellants guilty. Hence, these appeals at the instance of
\nthe appellants before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1 and A-5, the learned Counsel
\nMr.A.P.Muthupandian would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to
\nput forth any evidence worth mentioning; that the occurrence has taken place on
\n14.3.2005 at about 10.30 p.m.; that at that time, since it was dark, there
\nshould have been light to witness the occurrence; that even the sketch prepared
\nby the Investigator, would indicate that there was a light, but, there was no
\nevidence to show that the light was burning; that even as per the prosecution
\ncase, the accused immediately after attacking the deceased, made an attempt to
\nboard a running bus; but, they could not, and when the deceased woke up, again
\nthey came back and attacked him; that this fact was not mentioned in Ex.P1, the
\nearliest document; that further the prosecution attempted to prove the charges
\nlevelled against the appellants by examining P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 as occurrence
\nwitnesses; that out of these witnesses, P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 have turned hostile, and
\nhence, it was of no use to the prosecution; that the prosecution had no other
\nevidence to rely on except P.W.1; that P.W.1 could not have been an eyewitness
\nto the occurrence at all for more reasons than one; that the fact that the
\naccused after attacking the deceased attempted to board a running bus; but, they
\ncould not, and when the deceased woke up, they came back and attacked him was
\nnot mentioned in Ex.P1 by P.W.1; that under the circumstances, the document
\nitself is highly doubtful; that further, the prosecution came with the specific
\nmotive to state that A-1 entertained a suspicion that it was the deceased who
\nwas the informant to police regarding his criminal activities, and hence, he
\nattacked all of them; and that this motive was nowhere found in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as all other accused are
\nconcerned, their names are not found in the FIR; that what is mentioned therein
\nwas they are aged between 18 and 25; that no physical features are mentioned
\ntherein; that at random, it is mentioned as 18 to 25; that in the instant case,
\nin Ex.P1, the report, it is mentioned as 4 or 5 persons excepting A-1; but, at
\nthe time of evidence, P.W.1 has stated 8 or 9 persons as assailants; that it is
\na thorough deviation from Ex.P1; that all would indicate that P.W.1 could not
\nhave been an eyewitness to the occurrence; that he has not even narrated the
\novert acts attributed to them, in Ex.P1; but, at the time of evidence, he
\ndeveloped such a story; that at the time of Ex.P1 or the statement under Sec.161
\nCr.P.C<\/a>., he has not mentioned any names at all; but, at the time of evidence, he
\nhas completely developed and gave full narration of all the accused with
\nfather’s name, all the weapons wielded at the time of occurrence, and also the
\nindividual overt act; that these are all developments and improvements made at
\nthe time of evidence, and thus, the evidence of P.W.1 could not be believed;
\nthat it is true that identification parade was conducted; that as regards these
\naccused, some of them have already been arrested in connection with some other
\ncrime, and they were actually in custody, and they were all produced under P.T.
\nwarrant; that in view of the same, there is all possibility for the witnesses to
\nsee them before they identified before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of
\nthe identification parade; and hence, that cannot be taken to be as evidence
\nwhich is pointing to the guilt of the accused; that under the circumstances, the
\nevidence of P.W.1 is highly improbable and unbelievable; that it would be highly
\nunsafe to sustain a conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1, and hence,
\nthey are entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.As regards A-5, the learned Counsel would submit that according to the
\nprosecution, he had a knife, but not wielded, and thus, he has not caused any
\ninjury; that all the points which are available for the other accused, are
\nequally available to him, and hence, he is also entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-4, the learned Counsel would submit
\nthat on 24.3.2005, A-1 was arrested; that he is alleged to have given a
\nconfessional statement wherein he has pointed out all other accused; that A-4
\nwas arrested in connection with a case in Crime No.1242\/2005; that he was in
\ncustody; that he was actually taken for the purpose of identification parade on
\n7.6.2005, and thus, there was a delay of 30 days; that the delay caused in the
\nidentification would nullify the result of the same; that no weapon was also
\nrecovered from him; that no weapon was attributed to him or held by him; that
\nthe prosecution had no case against A-4, and hence, he is entitled for
\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The learned Counsel appearing for A-6 would submit that P.W.1 was the
\nonly witness; that he knew A-6; and that if A-6 is really known to him, there
\nwas no need for any identification parade.  Added further the learned Counsel
\nthat according to the prosecution, he was having a stick; but, there was no
\ncorresponding injury found; that all the injuries noted in the postmortem
\ncertificate, would clearly reveal that those injuries were caused by a knife;
\nthat if to be so, the stick was not wielded at all; that P.W.1 was the only
\nwitness, who has categorically spoken to the fact that there were six weapons
\nwhich were produced before the Court; that all these six weapons were held by
\nall those accused before the Court; that if to be so, even according to P.W.1,
\nA-6 was not holding a knife; that in the FIR, excepting A-1, it is mentioned as
\n4 or 5 persons, and hence, A-6 could not have been present at the place of
\noccurrence; that originally, the charge against A-6 was under Sec.147 IPC<\/a>; that
\nunder the circumstances, it is highly doubtful whether A-6 could have been
\npresent in the place of occurrence at all, and hence, he is to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The learned Counsel for A-4 would further submit that P.W.14, the Sub
\nInspector of Police, has given evidence that P.W.1 came to the police station
\nand gave an oral complaint, and the same was reduced into writing; but, P.W.1
\nwould state that he gave complaints both by oral and also in written form; that
\nthe same would cast a doubt in Ex.P1; that as regards the test identification
\nparade, there was all possibility for P.W.1 to see the accused before the
\naccused were shown to him in the parade; that the entire narration of the
\naccused by P.W.1 in evidence before the Court was actually contra to the
\nphysical features, and hence, the evidence of P.W.1 could not be relied, and
\nunder the circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The learned Counsel appearing for A-2 would submit that he never gave
\nany confession as alleged by the prosecution; that the test identification
\nparade was conducted after the alleged confessional statement was taken in the
\npolice custody; that the witnesses could not identify him at the identification
\nparade; that under the circumstances, the identification proceedings should not
\nhave been believed; that there is no specific description about the accused
\neither in the FIR or in the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C<\/a>., and hence, he is
\nentitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and made its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.It is not a fact in controversy that in an occurrence that took place
\nat 10.30 p.m. on 14.3.2005, the deceased Mahalingam was attacked brutally, and
\nas a result, he died instantaneously at the spot.  After the registration of the
\ncase by the Sub Inspector of Police, the Investigator proceeded to the spot and
\nmade an inspection and after the inquest, he made a requisition to the hospital
\nauthorities for postmortem.  The Doctor, P.W.3, after doing the postmortem, has
\ngiven his opinion in Ex.P3, the postmortem certificate, and also deposed before
\nthe Court that the deceased would appear to have died due to cumulative effect
\nof all the injuries both external and corresponding internal, sustained. The
\nfact that Mahalingam died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by any
\none of the appellants.  Hence, it could be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In order to substantiate the charges that all the accused before the
\ntrial Court along with three others in furtherance of the common object, armed
\nwith deadly weapons, proceeded to the spot and attacked the deceased
\nindiscriminately, the prosecution marched P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 as occurrence
\nwitnesses.  It is true that out of those four witnesses, P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 turned
\nhostile.  Thus, their evidence was not available to the prosecution.  What was
\nleft for the prosecution was the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1.  True it is,
\nP.W.1 was a close relative of the deceased.  Merely because, he was a close
\nrelative, his evidence cannot be discarded; but, the Court has to apply the test
\nof careful scrutiny.  It is also further to be pointed out that merely because
\nthere is a solitary testimony of P.W.1, the case of the prosecution cannot be
\nrejected, if his evidence has inspired the confidence of the Court.  Even after
\napplying the both the tests as stated above, the Court is thoroughly satisfied
\nthat the prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 as
\nnarrated below.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.P.W.1 has categorically stated that following his marriage on
\n20.2.2005, there was a function that had taken place on 13.3.2005, where the
\nrelatives were to meet on that day; that after it was over, at that time there
\nwas a quarrel between the deceased and A-1, of which he (P.W.1) was not a direct
\nwitness; that thereafter, that night, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased and others
\nwent over to the parota stall which he was running, for the purpose of cleaning
\nthe same since it was locked for a few days and to keep it open the next day;
\nthat at that time, the deceased was sleeping outside the shop in a cement pial;
\nthat after hearing the distressing cry of the deceased, they came out and saw
\nthe accused attacking the deceased.  He would further state that after seeing
\nthese witnesses, the accused tried to fly away by stopping a bus and boarding
\ninto it; that at that time, the deceased who was attacked by them, woke up; that
\non seeing this, they immediately came back and attacked him indiscriminately,
\nand as a direct consequence, he succumbed to the injuries.  Now, the earliest
\ndocument which has come into existence, was Ex.P1.  P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector
\nof Police, who reduced into writing the oral complaint given by P.W.1, and
\nwithin a short span of about half an hour, the FIR has come into existence.  It
\nhas also reached the Magistrate in the City of Madurai at about 1.30 a.m.  All
\nwould first go to show that immediately after the occurrence, a case came to be
\nregistered; that P.W.1 as an eyewitness has given the narration; and that the
\nFIR has also reached the Magistrate in point of time.  This would speak about
\nthe truth of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.It remains to be stated that P.W.1, when he gave the oral complaint to
\nP.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, has mentioned the name of A-1 and would
\nfurther add 4 or 5 persons who are aged between 18 and 25.  Following the
\nreport, the statement of P.W.1 was recorded by the Investigator under Sec.161 of
\nCr.P.C<\/a>.  In those statements, P.W.1 has stated only the name of A-1 and 4 or 5
\npersons, and he has nowhere mentioned the names of the other accused.  This
\nwould go to show that what was the statement given by P.W.1, was truth and
\nnothing but truth.  Had it been the intention of P.W.1 to implicate any one of
\nthe accused falsely, there was no impediment for him to put the names or
\ndescription of the other accused at the earliest, but has not done so.  Now, at
\nthis juncture, it is pertinent to point out that even as per the FIR, the
\nassailants were A-1 and 4 or 5 persons.  Further in the instant case, except A-
\n1, they were all to be identified.  A requisition was made pending the
\ninvestigation, for an identification parade to be conducted. The identification
\nparade was conducted by P.W.13, the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai.  On
\nthree days, identification parade was held.  First identification parade was
\nheld on 8.4.2005, where P.W.1 identified A-5, A-6 and one Manimaran, and P.W.2
\nidentified the said Manimaran. The second identification parade was conducted on
\n7.6.2005, where P.W.1 has categorically identified A-3, A-4 and one Murugesan.
\nThird identification parade was conducted on 14.7.2005, where P.W.1 has
\nidentified A-2.  Thus, P.W.1 has identified the accused persons who are all
\neither arrested or taken under P.T. warrant as they are already in custody. The
\nabsconding accused were also identified in the identification parade.  It is
\npertinent to point out that A-3 and A-4 who were involved in other criminal
\ncases, were in custody.  It remains to be stated that their involvement in other
\ncriminal cases are subsequent in point of time, and they were also identified.
\nIt remains to be stated that the identification parade has taken place within a
\nreasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.The learned Counsel for the appellant\/A-4 brought to the notice of the
\nCourt that the identification parade in respect of A-4 was conducted after a
\nperiod of 30 days.  This Court is unable to notice any delay or unreasonable
\ndelay.  No material is placed to accept the contention that the identification
\nparade should not be given effect.  As could be seen from the identification
\nparade proceedings, the procedural formalities have been strictly followed, and
\nP.W.1 has identified the above accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Added further, following the identification parade, the weapons of
\ncrime have been recovered.  It is true that as far as A-4 was concerned, no
\nweapon has been recovered.  Nowhere the law mandates that in a given case like
\nthis, the weapon of crime should be recovered.  The non-recovery of the weapon
\nof crime will not in any way affect the prosecution case in view of the settled
\npropositions of law.  Further, in the the case on hand, the recovery of the
\nweapons of crime from the respective accused pursuant to the confessional
\nstatements made, is a strong circumstance added to the other circumstances.
\nNow, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the identification parade which was
\nconducted in a reasonable time from the time of the arrest, and also the
\nrecovery of the weapons of crime, in the opinion of this Court, would suffice.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.Now, at this juncture, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel
\nfor the appellants have got to be considered.  In the instant case, the
\ncontention put forth that P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all cannot
\nbe accepted.  Merely because in the FIR, he has mentioned 4 or 5 persons apart
\nfrom the named A-1, and at the time of evidence, he has stated 7 or 8 persons,
\nit did not mean that he had not seen the occurrence.  It is true that he has not
\nattributed any overt acts in Ex.P1.  It is quite natural that in a given case
\nlike this, when the occurrence has taken place at about 10.30 p.m., and that
\ntoo, a close relative was being attacked with deadly weapons, if P.W.1 was able
\nto narrate the entire incident attributing the overt acts to each and every
\naccused with the weapons, that would be nothing but dramatical, and it will be
\nhighly improbable and unbelievable.  But, P.W.1 has stated that they
\nindiscriminately cut the deceased.  In the opinion of this Court, it would not
\nin any way shake the truth of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.The other contention put forth by the learned Counsel that motive part
\nis not mentioned there is of no consequence for the simple reason that P.W.1 was
\nnot at all present at the time when there was a quarrel between A-1 and the
\ndeceased, and hence, the non-mention of the motive in Ex.P1 or at the time when
\nthe evidence was given before the Court, will not affect the truth of the
\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Apart from the above, the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution
\nthrough P.W.3, the Doctor, and the postmortem certificate, stood fully
\ncorroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. Though the prosecution comes with the
\nsolitary evidence of P.W.1, the Court has to accept his evidence since it
\ninspired the confidence of the Court, and it has got to be acted upon as rightly
\ndone by the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.As far as A-6 is concerned, this Court is able to see force in the
\ncontention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant\/A-6.  As could be
\nseen from the FIR, the assailants were excepting A-1, 4 or 5 persons.  According
\nto the prosecution, A-6 was having a stick in hand.  According to P.W.1, it was
\nnot wielded.  That apart, no corresponding injury is noticed in the postmortem
\ncertificate.  P.W.1 at the time of the evidence, has categorically deposed that
\nsix weapons were recovered and were placed before the Court, and those weapons
\nwere actually held by A-1 to A-6 who were before the Court.  But, there was no
\nrecovery of any stick either or it was placed before the Court.  What were
\nrecovered and placed were only patta knives and aruval.  Under the
\ncircumstances, it is highly doubtful whether A-6 could have been present in the
\nplace of occurrence at all.  Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 in
\nthat regard and giving effect to the reasonable doubts that are entertained,
\nthis Court is of the considered opinion that as far as A-6 is concerned, he has
\ngot to be relieved of the charges, and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.For the reasons stated above, as regards A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, the
\njudgment of the trial Court is confirmed.  As far as A-6 is concerned, the
\njudgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court, is set aside, and
\nhe is acquitted of the charges.  The bail bond executed by A-6, shall stand
\nterminated, and the fine amount if any paid by him, will be refunded to him.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.In the result, C.A.No.641 of 2007 is allowed.  C.A.Nos.515, 525 and 656
\nof 2007 are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge
\n  Madurai\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n  Silaiman Police Station
\n  Madurai
\n  (Crime No.181\/2005)\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRL.A.(MD) No.515 of 2007 CRL.A.(MD) Nos.525, 641 and 656 of 2007 1.S.Jimmi Pandi 2.Muthaiah @ Prabhu .. Appellants in CA […]<\/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-269611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - 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\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-28T05:25:01+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\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:25:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4524,\"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\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:25:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - 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\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-28T05:25:01+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\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:25:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008"},"wordCount":4524,"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\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008","name":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:25:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jimmi-pandi-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-4-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Jimmi Pandi vs The State Rep. By on 4 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/269611","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=269611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}