{"id":59085,"date":"2003-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003"},"modified":"2016-04-04T10:10:55","modified_gmt":"2016-04-04T04:40:55","slug":"farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 14\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR\n\nCriminal Appeal No.758 of 2000\nand Criminal Appeal Nos., 775 and 924 of 2000\n\n\n1. Farooq\n\n2. Raja @ Raja Sekaran\n3. Anand                        ...  Appellants in C.A.758 of 2000\n\n1. Mathi @ Mathiazhagan            ...  Appellants\n2. Thiagi @ Suresh                        in C.A.775 of 2000\n\n\nPandy                              ...  Appellant in\n                                   C.A.924 of 2000\n-Vs-\n\nState of Tamil Nadu,\nrepresented by\nS.I. of Police,\nH-1 Police Station,\nMadurai 625 001.                   ... Respondent in\n                                  all C.As.\n\n        Criminal Appeals filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence\ndated 17.08.2000 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Chief  Judicial\nMagistrate at Madurai in S.C.No.262 of 1994.\n\n!For Appellants in C.A.758\/2000:  Mr.K.Jegannathan\n\n^For Appellants in C.A.775\/2000:  Mr.T.Munirathina Naidu\n\nFor Appellant in C.A.924\/2000 :Mr.Gopalakrishnalakshmanarajuu\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.E.Raja, Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by
\nS.ASHOK KUMAR, J.)<\/p>\n
        The appellants in all the above three appeals  were  accused  in  S.C.
\nNo.262  of  1994  on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, and
\nthey have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) A1  to undergo R.I.  for one year for the offence under Section 14
\n8 I.P.C.  and imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C.;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) A3 to undergo R.I.  for one year under Section 148  I.P.C.    and
\nR.I.  for two years under Section 324 I.P.C.;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) A5 to  undergo  R.I.  for one year under Section 148 I.P.C.  and
\nR.I.for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default to undergo  S.I.
\nfor six months under Section 307 I.P.C.;\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) A2,  A6  to  A9 to undergo R.I.  for six months under Section 147
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
\n        At Madurai, cricket matches were conducted between local teams in  the
\nRace Course Ground for the past two years prior to the date of occurrence.  On
\n29.12.1991,  there  was a match between the Armed Reserve Police Line team and
\nMadurai Krishnapuram Colony team.  P.W.1  Gopal,  deceased  Ramesh  and  P.W.6
\nIlanchelian  and  their  friends went to the Race Course ground to witness the
\nmatch.  Krishnapuram Colony team scored 125 runs  in  20  overs.    The  Armed
\nReserve  Police  Line  team,  which  played next, scored 108 runs in 17 overs.
\nSince it became 6’O clock in the evening, Armed  Reserve  team  expressed  its
\ninability to play continually, but the organizing committee insisted the Armed
\nReserve  team to continue their playing as there were only another three overs
\nto be played.  But, the Armed Reserve  team  made  a  walk  out.    Therefore,
\nKrishnapuram Colony  team  was  declared to have won the match.  P.W.1 and the
\ndeceased entered into the play ground in support of the Armed Reserve team and
\nbeat A2 Farooq, the Umpire.  At 06.10 p.m., when P.W.1 and the deceased Ramesh
\nwere walking near Thamaraithotti, A1 Pondy, A2 Farooq, A3 Ramanathan, A4  Babu
\nalias  Richa  rdbabu,  A5  Mathi alias Mathialagan, A6 Kaalai, A7 Thiagi alias
\nRamesh, Bala  alias  Balachandran,  A8  Raja  alias  Rajasekar  and  A9  Anand
\nattempted to  beat them, but they escaped.  Thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased
\nwent to the shop of P.W.1.  After talking with  friends  at  his  shop,  P.W.1
\nGopal,  P.W.2  Sankar Kannan, P.W.3 Shanmugam, P.W.4 Raja, the deceased Ramesh
\nand three others went to P.W.4’s house to take money from  P.W.4’s  house  for
\ntheir food.  When they were passing through D.R.O.  colony around 07 .15 p.m.,
\nall the abovesaid accused attacked them.  A1 attacked the deceased on his left
\nneck with a knife.  When he attempted to stab the deceased again, the deceased
\nprevented  it with his left hand and therefore, sustained injuries on his left
\nhand.  A5 Mathi alias Mathialagan stabbed P.W.6 Illanchelian on his right side
\nchest with a knife and caused injury.  A3 Ramanathan stabbed on  the  back  of
\nP.W.1 Gopal and  caused  injury.    Other  accused pelted stones at them.  The
\ndeceased Ramesh after sustaining stab injuries ran towards west and fell down.
\nAt that time, street lights and house lights were burning.  P.W.1  Gopal  fled
\nfrom the  scene  of occurrence.  With the help of his neighbouring shop owner,
\nP.W.13 Vethanayagam,  P.W.1  Gopal  got  admitted  at  the  Government  Rajaji
\nHospital, Madurai.   P.W.6  was  also  admitted  at  the  same  hospital.  The
\ndeceased Ramesh was brought to the Government Hospital.  On the  same  day  at
\n07.45 p.m.  he died.  The death report to the Police is Ex.P.15.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  P.W.15 Mathusudanan, Sub Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police
\nStation, who received a telephonic message from the Outpost Police Station  of
\nthe  Government  Hospital,  went  there  on the same day and collected Ex.P.15
\ndeath report and recorded Ex.P.1 complaint from P.  W.1 Gopal  at  09.15  p.m.
\nAt  10.00 p.m., he registered a case in Cr.No.1685 of 1991 under Sections 147,
\n148, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C.    Ex.P.16  is  the  First  Information
\nReport.  He  sent  the  original of the F.I.R.  to the Court and copies to the
\nhigher officials.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) P.W.19  Navaneethakrishnan,  Inspector  of  Police,  Thallakulam
\nPolice Station, who received the copy of the F.I.R., proceeded to the scene of
\noccurrence.   On  29.12.1991  at 10.45 p.m., in the presence of P.W.5 Remijeas
\nand one Chidambaram, he prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and  drew  Ex.P.20
\nrough sketch.   At  11.00  p.m.,  he  recovered  M.    O.7 bloodstained cement
\nflooring pieces and M.O.8 sample cement flooring pieces  under  the  cover  of
\nmahazar Ex.P.4.    At  11.15  p.m.,  he recovered M.O.5 bloodstained earth and
\nM.O.6 sample earth under the cover  of  Ex.P.3  mahazar.    At  the  scene  of
\noccurrence, he  examined  P.W.5  Remijeas, Chidambaram and one Gurunathan.  On
\n30.12.1991 at 06.00 a.m., he  went  to  the  Government  Rajaji  Hospital  and
\nexamined  and recorded the statement of, P.W.6 Ilanchelian and recovered M.O.9
\nbloodstained lungi produced by him.  He took P.W.1  Gopal  from  the  ward  to
\nmortuary.  Between  07.00  a.m.    and 10.00 a.m., he conducted inquest on the
\nbody of the deceased Ramesh in the presence of panchayathars.  Ex.P.21 is  the
\ninquest report.    He also recovered M.O.2 bloodstained pant produced by P.W.1
\nGopal, M.O.3 bloodstained lungi  and  M.O.4  bloodstained  shirt  produced  by
\nP.W.4.   He  examined  and recorded the statements of, P.W.9 Abuthakir, P.W.13
\nVedanayagam, P.W.15 the Sub Inspector of Police and other witnesses.  He  sent
\nEx.P.13  requisition  through  P.W.11  Muthuraj,  Police Constable, to conduct
\npostmortem on the body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) P.W.14 Dr.  Thiyagarajan, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Madurai
\nMedical  College,  conducted  postmortem  on  the  body  of  the  deceased  on
\n30.12.1991 at 10.15 a.m.  and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
        “1.   Transversely oblique stab injury lower 3rd of left side neck 3.5
\ncms x .5 cm x entering the neck muscles.  Margins regular, both ends  pointed.
\nOuter end  situated 11 cms from the left ear.  On dissection; the wound passes
\nobliquely downwards, inwards and towards right cutting the  neck  muscles  and
\nleft  side  jugular  vein  and  carotid  vessel through & through, cutting the
\nposterior wall of wind pipe obliquely downwards 3 cms xx line ear x through  &
\nthrough and  piercing  the  right  carotid  sheeth  carotid.  25 cm x linear x
\nentering the lumen.  Surrounding area contains 550 grams of blood clots.  Wind
\npipe contains froth blood clots at the lower portion.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  A vertically oblique incised wound left hand dorsum below the left
\nindex finger 3 cms x .25 cm.  bone deep with tailing towards the wrist 2 cms.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Irregular abrasion front of lower chest 4 x 3  cms  with  few  mud
\nparticles.”\n<\/p>\n
He  also  gave  an  opinion  that  the  deceased  would appear to have died of
\nhaemorrhage  and  shock  as  a  result  of  external  stab  injury  No.1  with
\ncorresponding internal  injuries  (injury  to the left jugular vein?  carotid,
\nwind pipe and right carotid) sustained by him 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy.
\nThe postmortem certificate issued by P.W.14 is Ex.  P.14.\n<\/p>\n
        (v) Continuing his investigation, on 30.12.1991 at 10.00 p.m., P.W.1 9
\nthe Inspector of Police arrested A7 Thiyagi alias Ramesh alias  Suresh  Kumar,
\nBala  alias  Balalchandran-juvenile  accused, A8 Raja alias Rajasekaran and A9
\nAnand at Vellaikal Mandapam near Muntru mavadi and sent them to  the  judicial
\ncustody.   On 31.12.1991, P.W.19 examined some witnesses and on 01.01.1992, he
\nexamined P.W.8  Muthuramasubbu,  Police  Constable,  P.W.11  Muthuraj,  Police
\nConstable and P.W.16  Dr.    Pandiarajan  and  recorded  their statements.  He
\nrecovered M.O.10 bloodstained lungi, M.O.11 shirt and M.O.12 waist-cord of the
\ndeceased from P.W.11 Muthuraj, Police Constable.  On 02.01.1999 at 07.00 p.m.,
\nhe arrested A1 Pandi near Karthik Theatre at Puthur in the presence  of  P.W.7
\nPancharam.   A1  volunteered  to  give  a confession statement, the admissible
\nportion of which is Ex.P.5.  A1 took P.W.19  and  the  witnesses  to  Saravana
\nClinic  old  building near Thamaraithottam and produced M.O.1 knife, which was
\nseized under the cover of Ex.P.6 mahazar.  Thereafter, A1 was sent to  remand.
\nOn  08.01.1992  at 05.00 a.m., P.W.18 the Sub Inspector of Police, Thallakulam
\nPolice Station arrested A5 Mathi alias Mathialagan at Madurai town Bikkara Bus
\nstop and sent him for judicial remand.  On 09.01.1992, P.W.19 the Inspector of
\nPolice sent a requisition to the Magistrate’s  Court  to  send  all  the  case
\nproperties for  chemical  analysis.    On  31.01.1992  at  07.30  p.m.,  at A.
\nVallalapatti Bus Stop, he  arrested  A6  Kaalai  and  sent  him  for  judicial
\ncustody.    After   completion  of  investigation,  on  29.04.1992,  he  filed
\ncharge-sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 336, 326, 307, 30  2
\nr\/w 149 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  On  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  P.Ws.    1 to 19 were examined,
\nExs.P.1 to P.21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  When all the accused were questioned  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.
\nwith  regard  to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the accused stated  that  they  did
\nnot know and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was false and they
\nwere implicated in a false case.  No oral or documentary evidence was produced
\non behalf of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  learned  Counsel  appearing for the appellants would contend
\nthat any of the accused was not earlier known to  the  prosecution  witnesses,
\nparticularly  A1  was  not known to the complainant, and their names have been
\nimpleaded after due deliberation since the deceased happens to be the  son  of
\nan  Assistant  Commissioner of Police and the presence of the witnesses at the
\nplace of occurrence was unnatural and the deceased party were the  aggressors,<\/p>\n
who   might   have   come  to  assault  the  accused  and  there  are  several
\ncontradictions in the evidence of the prosecution  witnesses,  and  therefore,
\nall the appellants should be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  But, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is
\nthat P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the injured eyewitnesses, whose presence in the scene
\nof occurrence  cannot  be  denied  and the F.I.R.  has been lodged immediately
\nafter the occurrence and there is no delay in the F.I.R.  reaching the  Court.
\nApart  from  the two injured eye-witnesses, three other eyewitnesses have also
\nbeen examined to prove the prosecution case and hence,  he  submits  that  the
\nappeal should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   We gave our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the
\nlearned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also  the  learned  Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor, and also perused the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   P.W.1,  P.W.6,  the  deceased  and  others have gone to witness a
\ncricket match conducted on 29.12.1991 between the Armed  Reserve  Police  Line
\nteam and  Krishnapuram  Colony  Team  at the Race Course ground.  Krishnapuram
\nColony team had scored 125 runs in 20 overs.  When the  Armed  Reserve  Police
\nLine  team  played next, they were able to score 108 runs in 17 overs and they
\nrefused to play the remaining three overs  due  to  failure  of  light.    The
\norganizing  committee  insisted  that the match should be continuously played,
\nbut the Armed Reserve Line Team made a walk out from the match and  therefore,
\nA2  Farooq  declared that Krishnapuram colony team has won the match, for that
\nP.W.1 and the deceased beat A2.    Around  06.10  p.m.,  when  P.W.1  and  the
\ndeceased were walking near Thamaraithotti, all the accused tried to beat them,
\nbut they  escaped  and  ran away.  After coming to the shop of P.W.1, P.W.1 to
\nP.W.4, P.W.6, the deceased and some others had a chat at the shop of P.W.1 and
\nthey wanted to take food at Pudur.  Since they had no money, they wanted to go
\nto P.W.4’s house, who was willing to take money from his house for their food.
\nFor the said purpose, P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 and the deceased went to D.R.O.
\ncolony around 07.15 p.m.  According to the evidence  of  P.W.1  to  P.W.4  and
\nP.W.6,  all  the  accused  were  sitting at Gurunathan Tea stall and on seeing
\nthem, they shouted that the prosecution witnesses have come from another  area
\nto  attack the people living in their area and so saying, the accused attacked
\nP.W.1, P.W.6 and the deceased.  According to the evidence of  P.W.1  to  P.W.4
\nand  P.W.6, A1 Pondy is said to have inflicted stab injury on the left neck of
\nthe deceased with a knife and when he attempted to stab  again,  the  deceased
\nRamesh prevented him with his left hand and sustained injury on the left hand.
\nA3  Ramanathan  stabbed  on the back of P.W.1 Gopal with a knife and caused an
\ninjury.  A5 Mathi alias Mathialagan stabbed P.W.6 Illanchelian  on  his  right
\nchest with  a  knife  and  caused  injury.  After receipt of the injuries, the
\ndeceased ran for some distance and fell down.  P.W.1 Gopal with  the  help  of
\nP.W.13  Vethanayagam,  neighbouring shop owner, got admitted in the Government
\nHospital at 0830 p.m.  The deceased was  taken  to  the  Government  Hospital,
\nwhere he died  at 07.45 p.m.  and the death intimation is Ex.P.1 5.  P.W.6 got
\nadmitted in the hospital at 07.40 p.m.  for the injuries sustained by him.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  As far as the overt-acts of A1, A3  and  A5  with  regard  to  the
\nassault  on  the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.6 are concerned, it is uniform in the
\nevidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6, among whom P.W.1 and P.W.6  are  injured
\neyewitnesses.   There  is  also no material contradiction when the evidence of
\nP.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 is compared with Ex.P.1  complaint  lodged  with  the
\nPolice by P.W.1  at 09.15 p.m.  on the same day.  Based on Ex.P.1 complaint, a
\ncase has been  registered  at  10.00  p.m.    The  F.I.R.    has  reached  the
\nMagistrate’s Court  by  01.00 a.m.  on 30 .12.1991, and thus there is no delay
\nin lodging the complaint or the F.I.R.  reaching the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  P.W.1 Gopal has categorically admitted that two days prior to the
\noccurrence, he came to know about A1 as Thiruvalluvar Nagar Pondy.  The  other
\neyewitnesses have also claimed that they know A1 already.\n<\/p>\n
        11.    The  contention  of  the  learned  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellants is that when P.W.6 Illanchelian was admitted in the hospital  at  0
\n7.40 p.m.   on 29.12.1991, there is no reason for the Police for not getting a
\ncomplaint from him, but  on  the  other  hand,  the  Police  have  obtained  a
\ncomplaint  from  P.W.1  Gopal,  who was admitted in the hospital only at 08.30
\np.m., which would only show that the Police were interested in  registering  a
\ncase  through  P.W.1  Gopal,  because  the  accused  were  not  known to P.W.6
\nIllanchelian.  In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for
\nthe appellants would cite an endorsement made by the  Doctor  in  Ex.P.7  case
\nsheet wherein it is mentioned that the injuries were caused by unknown persons
\nto P.W.6.   A perusal of Ex.P.7 case sheet would show that such an endorsement
\nwas made by the Doctor at 07.50 p.m.  after admission of the  patient  in  the
\nward.  Ex.P.7 case sheet also contains a copy of the accident register wherein
\nit  is  stated  that  when  the  patient was admitted at 07.40 p.m., P.W.6 has
\ncategorically stated that he was  assaulted  by  ten  known  persons.    P.W.6
\nIllanchelian  has sustained serious injuries on his right chest and therefore,
\nhe should have been under serious treatment by Doctors after admission in  the
\nward.  The brother-in-law of P.W.6 has also made an endorsement in Ex.P.7 case
\nsheet that  he  was informed about the serious condition of P.W.6.  Therefore,
\nit is probable that when P.W.6 was under treatment, the Doctor, who  made  the
\nendorsement  on  the  second  page  of  the  case  sheet  might have asked the
\nbrotherin-law of P.W.6 as to  who  caused  the  injuries  and  naturally,  the
\nbrother-in-law  of P.W.6 might have told that he does not know the assailants.
\nThe reason for getting Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 Gopal may be the time  when
\nP.W.15  Sub  Inspector  of  Mathusuthanan obtained a message through phone and
\nthereafter  went  to  the  Government  Hospital  where  Ex.P.1  complaint  was
\nrecorded.  According to P.W.15, he received a phone message at 08.45 p.m.  and
\nalso received  Ex.P.15 death intimation at 09.00 p.m.  and thereafter, went to
\nthe hospital where he found that P.W.1 and P.W.6 were admitted for  treatment.
\nSince  the  injuries  sustained  by P.W.6 was serious in nature, he could have
\nbeen attended by the Doctors, and therefore, P.W.15 got a statement from P.W.1
\nGopal, who was also an in-patient in the hospital  and  who  sustained  lesser
\nsimple injuries.    No motive could be attributed for getting a complaint from
\nP.W.1 and not from P.W.6.  In the circumstances as narrated  above,  there  is
\nnothing  wrong  on  the  part of P.W.15 the Sub Inspector of Police in getting
\nEx.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 Gopal.  The  contention  of  the  learned  Counsel
\nappearing  for  the  appellants that P.W.6 Ilanchelian has informed the Doctor
\nthat he was assaulted by unknown persons is also untenable, because, the  said
\nendorsement  was  made  by  the Doctor at 07.50 p.m., whereas in the a ccident
\nregister recorded at 07.40 p.m., P.W.6 Illanchelian has  categorically  stated
\nthat he was assaulted by ten known persons.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Another  important  circumstantial  evidence in this case is the
\narrest of A1 and recovery of knife, M.O.1 in pursuance of a confession made by
\nhim.  The occurrence has taken place on the night of 29.12.19 91 around  07.15
\np.m.   On  02.01.1992,  at 07.00 p.m., in the presence of P.W.7 Sriram and one
\nRameshthilakan, P.W.19 the Inspector of Police arrested A1  and  recorded  his
\nconfession, the  admissible  portion  of which is Ex.P.5.  In pursuance of the
\nsaid confession, A1  has  taken  P.W.19,  the  Inspector  of  Police  and  the
\nwitnesses  to  a  out-house  of  Saravana Cleaners at Lakshmi Theatre Road and
\nproduced M.O.1 bloodstained knife which was seized under the cover  of  Ex.P.6
\nmahazar.   When  M.O.1  knife  was sent for chemical analysis along with other
\ncase properties, the chemical examiner has found blood, as seen  from  Ex.P.11
\nchemical examiner’s  report  of  the forensic laboratory.  Ex.P.12 serological
\nreport would further show that the blood deducted in M.O.1  knife  belongs  to
\nhuman ‘B’  group.    The  serological  report  would  further  show that M.O.5
\nbloodstained earth and M.O.11 shirt of the deceased contained the  same  blood
\ngroup, which would conclusively prove that M.O.1 knife was used for committing
\nthe murder  of  the  deceased  Ramesh.    This  circumstantial  evidence is in
\naddition to the ocular testimony of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and  P.W.6,
\namong whom,  P.W.1  and P.W.6 are injured eye-witnesses.  There is no delay in
\nlodging the complaint or registering the complaint or the F.I.R.  reaching the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Since all the accused have no pre-plan  to  attack  the  deceased
\nRamesh  or  P.W.1  Gopal  and  P.W.6 Illanchelian and the occurrence has taken
\nplace out of sudden quarrel,  charges  under  Section  148  I.P.C.    are  not
\nmaintainable  and A1, A3 and A5 are liable for punishment for their individual
\nact, since there was  no  common  intention  and  all  the  accused  have  not
\nassembled for  an unlawful object.  When all the accused were sitting in a tea
\nstall, none of them could have expected that the deceased  and  the  witnesses
\nwill  come  to  the  scene  of occurrence and therefore, there was no pre-plan
\nbetween the accused to commit the crime.  Therefore, there was neither  common
\nintention nor common object to attack the deceased and P.W.1 and P.W.6.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   As regards the other overt-acts of the other accused, A2, A4, A6
\nto A9 pelted stones resulting in any damage  to  the  property,  there  is  no
\nevidence.   Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on A2, A6 to A9 for
\noffences under Section 147 I.P.C.  are set aside.  The convictions of  A1  and
\nA3 under Sections  148  I.P.C.   is set aside.  They are acquitted of the said
\ncharge.  The bail bond executed by the accused shall  stand  cancelled.    The
\nconviction and sentence imposed on A1 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., A3
\nfor offence under  Section  324  I.P.C.   and A5 under Section 307 I.P.C.  are
\nconfirmed The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the  custody  of
\nthe A5  to  undergo the remaining period of sentence.  This Criminal Appeal is
\npartly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The I Addl.  Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judl.  Magistrate,
\nMagistrate, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Thro’ The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, madras.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Inspector of Police, H1 Thallakulam Police Station,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The District Collector, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Director General of Police, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal Nos., 775 and 924 of 2000 1. Farooq 2. Raja @ Raja Sekaran […]<\/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-59085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFarooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 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\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-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=\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T04:40:55+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T04:40:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3519,\"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\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T04:40:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 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":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 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\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-04T04:40:55+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T04:40:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003"},"wordCount":3519,"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\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003","name":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T04:40:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Farooq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 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\/59085","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=59085"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59085\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}