{"id":60616,"date":"2009-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-16T11:22:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T05:52:59","slug":"sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\nDATED:   14.10.2009\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL\n\nCrl.A.No. 211  of   2009\n1. Sekar\n2. Krishnamurthy\n3. Senthil\n4. Kittu alias Krishnamurthy             .. Appellants\/Accused Nos.1 to 4\n\nVs.\n\nState, rep. by Inspector of Police,\nVedaranyam Police Station \nNagapattinam  District\n(Crime No.220 of 2005)\t\t   .. Respondent\/Complainant\n\nPrayer: Appeal against the Judgment, dated 30.1.2009, passed in Sessions Case No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.\nFor Appellants    ::    Mr. S.Sadasharam\n\n                      For Respondent ::     Mr. Hassan Mohamed Jinnah\n                                       Addl. Public  Prosecutor\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J.)
\n          The appellants herein are the Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam  and they have preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by judgment dated 30.1.2009  in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellants will be referred to as A1 to A4.\n<\/p>\n
        2. Charges under Sections 341 and 506 (ii)  IPC were framed against A1 Sekar,  A2  Krishnamurthy,  A3 Senthil and A4 Kittu alias Krishnamurthy;   charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against A1 to  A3    and charge under Section 302 r\/w  109  IPC  was framed  against  A4 Kittu.   The learned Sessions Judge found A1 to A4 guilty of the charge under Section  341  IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment each;  found  A1 to A3 guilty of the charge under  Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo Life Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000\/- each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment  for   six months each and  found  A4 Kittu alias Krishnamurthy guilty of the charge under Section 302 r\/w 109 IPC and  convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment  and to pay a fine         of Rs.5000\/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment  for       six months   and ordered the sentences to run concurrently and at the same time,  the  learned Sessions Judge found  A1 to A4 not guilty of the charge under Section 506 (ii)  IPC and acquitted them of that charge.\n<\/p>\n
          3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
          4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.\n<\/p>\n
            PW.6 Dhanalakshmi is the wife of  deceased  Arumugam.    PW.2  Nagaraj is the elder brother of  the deceased Arumugam.   PW.3 Achikkannu is the wife of PW.2  Nagaraj.    During the month of  January  2005,  PW.2  Nagaraj was given a sum of  Rs.2000\/- towards  Tsunami  relief and he kept the amount  in the house and  slept.   PW.3  Achikkannu was sleeping on the cot  wrapping  herself  with bedsheet and  A1 Sekar came to  their  house with an intention to steal the said amount  and  mistaking the person  lying on the cot as PW.2 Nagaraj,  A1 Sekar  inflicted three or four cut injuries on the head of   PW.3 Achikkannu who was lying on the cot.    Immediately, PW.3 Achikkannu was taken to Vedaranyam Government Hospital by her brother-in-law  Arumugam and a complaint came to be lodged at Vedaranyam Police Station against  Sekar, who is the first accused herein and the  criminal  case  was  pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t    A1  Sekar developed  grouse against  Arumugam and on 11.4.2005 at about 8.30 pm, when Arumugam  was returning to his house from Vedaranyam bazaar,  A1 to  A4  intercepted  him           near Andavar Kollai and Arumugam  ran  and  was chased by the accused  and    when Arumugam slipped and fell down on the ground,  A4 Kittu alias Krishnamurthy caught hold of his head  and A1  Sekar  stabbed on the scapular area twice with knife;   A2  Krishnamurthy  stabbed him with knife  on the right side of the scapular area and  A3  Senthil  also  stabbed him on the back of the chest  with  knife.    PW.2  Nagaraj saw the occurrence.    All the accused ran  away with weapons.    On  hearing  the  cry  of   Arumugam,   PW.3  Achikkannu,  PW.6  Dhanalakshmi and  PW.1  Subramanian  ran to the occurrence place and found Arumugam seriously  injured.    Arumugam told  PW.1 Subramanian and  PW.6 Dhanalakshmi that  the accused  inflicted  stab injuries on him with knife.\n<\/p>\n
\t    PW.2  Nagaraj took the injured Arumugam to Vedaranyam Government  Hospital.   PW.13  Dr.Ananthakrishnan examined  Arumugam at  9 pm on 11.4.2005 at Vedaranyam Government Hospital and found him  conscious  by answering  questions.    Arumugam told him that he was attacked by  two  known persons with knife  and  PW.13  Dr.Ananthakrishnan  found  four  cut  injuries  on the scapular area  and  another  cut  injury at   L7  Renal Angle and he referred  him to  Nagapattinam Government Hospital for further treatment.   Ex.P10 is the Accident  Register  issued by him.\n<\/p>\n
             PW.16 Sub Inspector  Kulothungan  of  Vedaranyam Police Station received  intimation at  9.30 pm   on  11.4.2005 and went there and found  injured  Arumugam  already referred and taken to Nagapattinam  Government  Hospital.   He  recorded  Ex.P14 Statement given by Arumugam at  8.30 am on 12.4.2005 at Nagapattinam Government Hospital and returned to  Police Station and  registered a case in Crime No. of  220\/2005  under Sections 341, 324, 506(ii) and 307  IPC and prepared Ex.P15  First Information Report and  dispatched the same to the Court and higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
\t   PW.17  Inspector  Anbazhagan  took up the investigation on 12.4.2005 and  went to the occurrence place and prepared           Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.7  Rasu.   Ex.P21  is the Rough sketch drawn by him.   He seized MO.2 Bloodstained Shirt worn by Arumugam under  Ex.P1 mahazar in the presence of  PW.6 Dhanalakshmi and another at Government Hospital, Nagapattinam.  He examined the witnesses and recorded the statements.   He arrested A1 Sekar on 13.4.2005 at  6 pm in front of Shanmugam Textile Shop and enquired him in the presence of PW.8 Marimuthu and PW.9 Murugesan and recorded the confession statement given by      A1 Sekar.   Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the confession statement.   A1 Sekar took them to  Andavar Kollai and took and produced  MO.3  Knife hidden near the palmyra  tree and he recovered it under Ex.P4 mahazar in the presence of said  witnesses.  He arrested   A2  Krishnamurthy near  Rajaji  Park  and enquired him in the presence of   PW.10 Muruganandham and another and recorded the confession statement given by  A2 Krishnamurthy.    Ex.P6 is the admissible  portion of the confession statement.    He   received death intimation of  Arumugam on 19.4.2005 and              he went to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest on the body and prepared  Ex.P18 Inquest  Report.   He examined some more witnesses.  He sent the body for  post-mortem  with Ex.P11 Requisition.\n<\/p>\n
        P.W.14  Dr.Vijayalakshmi  conducted autopsy on the body of Arumugam  at  2 pm on 19.4.2005  at  Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and found the following.\n<\/p>\n
“EXTERNAL  INJURIES:-\n<\/p>\n
       1)  A  Mid line surgically sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over the front of Abdomen found extending from the ziphisternum upto        13 cms  above the supra  pubic region -  Total length measured 21 cms  made for Treatment purpose.\n       2)  A surgically made drainage wound with a rubber drainage tube in situ noted over the left side flank of  Abdomen  made for Treatment  purpose.\n    3)  Surgically made intercostal Drainage wounds one over each side lateral chest walls over the Anterior axillary line over the  6th  intercostal spaces with intact silk sutures  made for Treatment purpose.\n    4)  An oblique  sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over the Right side inter scapular area measuring 4 cms x 1 cm x Muscle deep found situated 16 cms below the  nape of Neck and        4 cms lateral  to the mid line.\n\n       5)  An oblique sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over the left  inter scapular area measuring  4 cms x 1 cm x Muscle deep found situated 17 cms below the nape of  Neck and         2 cms lateral to the mid line.\n\n       6)  3 cms below the above wound No.5, a vertically oblique sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over the left side infra scapular area over the renal angle measuring 6 cms x 1 cm x Abdominal cavity deep.\n\n      7)   2 cms below the above wound No.6, a curved sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over the mid line measuring  6 cms x 1 cm x abdominal  cavity deep.\n          8)   A sutured wound  with  intact one silk suture noted over the Right infra scapular area measuring  2 cms x  1\/2  cm x   1\/4  cm.\n\n       9)  Multiple linear dark brown coloured scratch abrasions of various sizes about  Ten numbers noted over both sides of back of chest.\nINTERNAL  INJURIES:-\n      10)  On dissection of  chest -  Anterior and posterior Thoracic  wall contusion noted over the whole of both sides of  chest.   Multiple  contusions of various sizes noted over all the lobes of  both lungs.   Thoracic cavity contained 800 ml of      blood stained fluid on both sides.\n\n<\/pre>\n
    11)  On dissection of Abdomen –  Retro peritoneal contusion noted over the whole of both sides.  Diffuse contusion over the root of mesentery and  whole of mesentery.   Spleen found surgically removed and hence missing.  Reparative sutures noted over the splenic bed with surrounding contusion.  The above mentioned external injury No.6 was found to have injured the body of Pancreas and Surgical reparative sutures noted over it.   Further the above mentioned external injury No.7 has found to have injured the middle portion of jejunum and surgical reparative sutures for  end to end  anastomosis  noted.   Multiple contusions of various sizes  noted over the coils of Jejunum Surgical Reparative sutures  noted at four places in the coils of jejunum  made for Treatment purpose for the closure of perforations.   Abdominal cavity contained about 800 ml of blood stained fluid contusion of whole of both kidneys  also  noted.\n<\/p>\n
       All the above mentioned  injuries  were of  antemortem in nature.\n<\/p>\n
Extremities    .. Pale.\nHeart             .. Normal in size.  All the \n                     chambers   contained fluid -  blood.\n\nValves            .. Normal.\n\n\nCoronary vessels .. patent. Great vessels  \t\t                   Normal.\nLungs                .. C\/s  both pale and oedematous.\n\nLarynx and hyoid bone  ..  intact.\n\nStomach        ..      Empty.  Mucosa  pale. \n                       No  specific smell made out.\n\nLiver, Kidneys ..      C\/s pale.\nSpleen           ..       Found missing due to Surgical  Removal.\n\nSmall intestine ..      Empty.  Mucosa  pale.\n\t\t\t     No specific smell made out.\n\nBladder          ..       Empty.  Pelvis  intact.\n\nBones and\nmembranes    ..       intact.\n\nBrain             ..       C\/s pale and oedematous.\"\n\nShe expressed opinion that the deceased  would appear to have     died due to multiple injuries involving many of the vital organs.   Ex.P12 is the   Post-mortem Certificate issued by her.\n\n           PW.17 Inspector Anbazhagan  gave requisition for sending the properties for chemical examination.   Exs.P19 Chemical examiner report and Ex.P20 Serologist report were received in  Court.    He completed the investigation  and filed final report against the accused.\n\n           5. The incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to them during their examination under          Section 313 CrPC and they denied complicity.  No witness was examined and  Ex.D1  was  marked on their side. \n\n<\/pre>\n
      \t\t 6. The Trial Court held that the charge under Section 341 IPC against A1 to 4;  charge under Section  302  IPC  against  A1 to A3 and  the charge under Section 302 r\/w 109 IPC against A4  are proved and sentenced them as stated earlier. Challenging the conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             7.  The prosecution case is that all the accused waylaid Arumugam while he was returning home and A1 to A3  stabbed him indiscriminately with Knives on the back of his chest in the scapular area, resulting in injuries which led to his death and A4 Kittu alias Krishnamurthy aided the attack.\n<\/p>\n
\t       8.  The learned counsel  for the appellants submits that as per the prosecution case, the case came to be registered on      Ex.P14 Statement given by injured Arumugam at 8.30 am on 12.4.2005 at Nagapattinam Government Hospital and the defence has established that the injured Arumugam was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and admitted there at 5 am on       12.4.2005 through  Ex.D1 Accident Register issued by Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and the Investigation Officer in his cross-examination has admitted that the version of  PW.16  Sub Inspector Kulothungan as having recorded  Ex.P14 Statement of the injured Arumugam at Nagapattinam Government Hospital is false and hence  the very foundation of the prosecution case is shown to be false and the prosecution did  not   examine  the  Doctors who treated the injured Arumugam in the Government Hospital at Nagapattinam as well as in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and no medical records have been produced to show the conscious state of mind of injured Arumugam and in the absence of  medical  evidence relating to the condition of injured Arumugam, the alleged oral  dying declarations said to have been given by injured Arumugam to the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted and though injured Arumugam survived for seven days after the occurrence no steps have been taken to record dying declaration from him and  PW.2  Nagaraj, who is the elder brother of  Arumugam, alone has testified that he  witnessed the occurrence and his version cannot be relied on for the reason that he is residing at  1 km away from the occurrence place and he rushed to the occurrence place  on hearing the wailing  noise of injured Arumugam and the prosecution has suppressed the fact that the case       came to be registered even before the injured was examined by the doctor  at  Vedaranyam Government Hospital which is evident from the copy of the Accident Register extract issued by him and the complaint given by  PW.2 Nagaraj to the police while  injured Arumugam was examined at Vedaranyam Government Hospital        has been suppressed and the Investigation Officer has not testified about the arrest of the accused and  the  recovery of weapons pursuant to the information given by the respective accused and the witnesses for the same have also not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove the  charges  against the accused and the conviction and sentence imposed on them  by the trial Court are liable to be set  aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t    9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though  PW.2  Nagaraj is related witness,  his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground and there are oral dying declarations spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 6 and the prosecution has let in evidence   to prove the charges and the conclusion of the trial Court  is sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t    10.  The case came to be registered on the  statement    given by injured Arumugam regarding the occurrence.   PW.16       Sub Inspector Kulothungan has testified that he received intimation from Vedaranyam Government Hospital at 9.30 pm on 11.4.2005 about the injuries sustained by Arumugam and he reached the hospital and   came to know that Arumugam had already been taken to Nagapattinam  Government Hospital and he reached there  at    8.30 am on 12.4.2005 and recorded Ex.P14 Statement given by injured Arumugam in  Nagapattinam  Government Hospital  and returned to Vedaranyam Police Station at 12.30 pm on the same day and registered a case in Crime No.220\/2005 under Sections 341, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC  against all the accused and prepared         Ex.P15 First Information Report.   PW.2 Nagaraj in his testimony has stated that they admitted the injured Arumugam at Nagapattinam Government Hospital at 11.30 p.m. and after giving treatment for half an hour, the Hospital Authorities  advised  them to take him to  Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and on the same night, they took the injured Arumugam and admitted him in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.   The defence would mark  Ex.D1 Accident Register extract  pertaining to injured Arumugam issued by Thanjavur Medical College Hospital in the  cross-examination of the Investigation Officer.   It is stated in Ex.D1 Accident Register extract that  injured Arumugam was admitted as an inpatient in  Thanjavur Medical College Hospital at      5 am on 12.4.2005.   Ex.D1 Accident Register extract demolishes the prosecution case that the statement was recorded from Arumugam at  8.30 am on  12.4.2005 at Nagapattinam Government Hospital.    The foundation of the prosecution case is shaken and there appears to be element of  suppression also.   The injured Arumugam was taken to Vedaranyam Government Hospital and he was examined by        PW.13 Dr.Ananthakrishnan at 9 pm on 11.4.2005 and according to him, Arumugam was brought before him on Police Memo and he examined him and found four cut injuries on the back of his chest in the scapular area with another injury in LT Renal angle.   Ex.P10 is the Accident Register issued by him and in that it is written that the            injured Arumugam was brought on Police Memo at 9.30 pm on 11.4.2005.   On the top of Ex.P10 Accident Register, it is written as CR.No.220\/05   341, 324, 307.   Ex.P10   Accident Register is a contemporaneous document which came into existence at the time of examination of injured Arumugam by  PW.13 Dr.Ananthakrishnan and it evidences the fact that a case came to be registered regarding      the attack made on Arumugam and on Police Memo he was referred to Government Hospital, Vedaranyam and it belies the version of PW.16 Sub Inspector Kulothungan.\n<\/p>\n
\t  11.  PW.2  Nagaraj in his testimony has stated that Inspector and Sub Inspector examined him in Vedaranyam Government Hospital and recorded the statement from him and read it over and obtained his signature in it and thereafter he took the injured Arumugam to Nagapattinam Government Hospital.  The statement recorded from PW.2 Nagaraj has been burked in the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t  12.  Admittedly, injured Arumugam was alive for a period of         7 days from the occurrence and he died only on 18.4.2005 at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.   The prosecution has not examined the doctor who treated the injured Arumugam in Nagapattinam Government Hospital as well as the doctor who treated him at  Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and the case sheet has  not been filed.    No explanation has been given in this regard and the omission to examine them is fatal to the case.   In this context,     it is also relevant to point out that no attempt was made from any quarter to record the dying declaration of injured Arumugam.   Neither the Hospital  Authorities nor the Investigation Officer had taken any steps to give requisition to the Judicial Magistrate            to   record\tthe dying declaration.   It is also relevant to note that the Investigation Officer PW.17 Inspector Anbazhagan had claimed in his testimony that he examined the injured Arumugam during investigation but he had stated that he omitted to despatch the said statement to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t   13. P.W.1 Subramanian and PW.6 Dhanalakshmi in their testimonies have stated that the  injured Arumugam, while being taken to the hospital, told them that the accused inflicted stab injuries on him.    There is absolutely no documentary evidence to show that  the injured Arumugam was conscious after the occurrence.         PW.13  Dr.Ananthakrishnan in his testimony has stated that the injured Arumugam was conscious while he examined him,  but        we are unable to place reliance on his testimony since nothing is               stated about the consciousness of Arumugam in the   contemporaneous document Ex.P10 Accident Register issued by him.   In the absence of medical evidence regarding the health condition     of injured Arumugam, the testimonies of  P.Ws.1 and 6 about the       oral  dying declarations  cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t    14.  P.W.4 Kumar and PW.5 Murugan though examined as having witnessed the occurrence, they did not state so in the trial and they were declared as hostile.   PW.2 Nagaraj alone has testified that on 11.4.2005 at about 8.30 pm, he was in his house and he heard the wailing noise of his younger brother Arumugam and he rushed to the occurrence place and saw Arumugam was waylaid by all the accused and A4 Kittu alias Krishnamurthy caught hold of the head of Arumugam and  A2 Krishnamurthy stabbed  Arumugam on the back of the chest in the scapular area twice with knife and the other two accused also    stabbed him with independent knives.   PW.2 Nagaraj in the   cross-examination has stated that the house of Lakshmi is situated    on the west of the occurrence place at a distance of  3\/4  km  and his house is situated further west of Lakshmi’s house at a distance of  1\/4  km.   If that is so, the house of  PW.2  Nagaraj is located    at a distance of  1 km away from the occurrence place.   It  is doubtful as to whether at such a distance PW.2 Nagaraj could have heard the wailing noise of his brother Arumugam at the time of occurrence.    Further, PW.3 Achikkannu in her testimony has stated that she and her husband heard the wailing noise of Arumugam and rushed to the occurrence place and she did not see the occurrence.   If that is so,   PW.2 Nagaraj also could not have seen the occurrence.   It is also unbelievable that the attack continued for such a long time     enabling  PW.2  Nagaraj to rush and witness the occurrence.   The testimony of PW.2 Nagaraj does not inspire confidence and no reliance can be placed on it.\n<\/p>\n
\t  15.  The prosecution case is that A1 Sekar was arrested on 13.4.2005 near Shanmuga  Textile Shop and enquired  in the presence of  PW.8 Marimuthu and PW.9 Murugesan and A1 Sekar gave confession statement containing Ex.P5 admissible portion and he took   and produced  MO.3  Knife  hidden near the palmyra  tree in the backyard of Andavar Garden.    PW.8  Marimuthu in his testimony has stated that A1 Sekar was arrested at 8.30 pm on the occurrence night itself near  Shanmuga Textile Shop and he gave confession statement  and took them to his house and took and produced  MO.3  Knife from his house and it came to be recovered under Ex.P4 mahazar  in his presence.    Of course, PW.9 Murugesan has testified about the prosecution case regarding the arrest of A1 Sekar and the recovery of MO.3 Knife.      PW.8 Marimuthu did not support the prosecution case as to the date of arrest of A.1 Sekar and the place of recovery and he had not been declared hostile and his testimony affects the testimony of P.W.9 Murugesan and the prosecution case with regard to the said recovery.\n<\/p>\n
\t   16. The further case of the prosecution is that A2  Krishnamurthy was arrested and enquired in the presence of  PW.10 Muruganandham and another and he gave information in the confession statement in their presence which led to recovery of MO.1 Knife.    M.Os.1, 3 and 4  Knives are said to be  the weapons of offences used by the accused at the time of occurrence to attack Arumugam and they came to be recovered on the information furnished by the accused.   The Investigation Officer, in his testimony in chief examination, did not speak about the arrest of  A2 to A4  effected by him by referring to the time and place of arrest and he also did not state that they gave information in their confession statements which led to recovery of  M.Os.1 and 4.    MO.3  Knife is said to have been recovered on the information given by A1 Sekar, but  PW.10  Muruganandham in his testimony has stated   that  A2 Krishnamurthy gave information in his confession statement containing  Ex.P6 admissible portion and took and produced   MO.3  Knife near the backyard  of  Andavar Garden.  Though   three knives are said  to have been recovered,   only two of them    have been sent  for  chemical examination and blood was not detected on any of them as evident from   Ex.P19 Chemical Examiner reports.   In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery.\n<\/p>\n
\t   17.  Arumugam died of homicidal violence is established by the testimony of  post-mortem doctor.   PW.14  Dr.Vijayalakshmi conducted autopsy on the body  at  2 pm on 19.4.2005  and found   five wounds  over the scapular area and on  dissection of chest,  found anterior and posterior Thoracic  wall contusion on both sides of  chest and multiple  contusions of various sizes  over all the lobes of   both lungs and on dissection of abdomen, found Retro peritoneal contusion over the whole of both sides and diffuse contusion over the root of mesentery.   She has further stated that the injuries found were   antemortem in nature and has expressed opinion that the deceased  would appear to have died due to multiple injuries involving many of the vital organs.   Ex.P12 is the   Post-mortem Certificate issued by her.  Accepting the  medical testimony, it is clear that Arumugam died of injuries sustained during the occurrence.   The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused caused those injuries to Arumugam at the time of occurrence and in such circumstances, they cannot be found guilty of the charges.\n<\/p>\n
            18.   The trial Court has misdirected itself  by wrongly appreciating the material evidence on record and the conclusion reached by it cannot be sustained.   The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants\/A1 to A4 are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t        19.  In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants\/Accused        Nos.1 to 4  in  Sessions Case No.108 of 2007  on the file  of  the Sessions Judge,  Nagapattinam are set aside and the  Appellants\/Accused Nos.1  to 4 are acquitted of  the charges and   the fine amount paid,  if any, is  to be refunded to them.   The  Appellants \/Accused Nos.1   to 4 are  directed to be released forthwith if their custody is not  required  in any other case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(C.N.J.)        (M.J.P.J.)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t        14.10.2009\nIndex:    yes.\nInternet: yes.\nvks\n\n\n\nTo\n\n1.    The  Sessions Judge,  Nagapattinam.\n\n2.    The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station \n\tNagapattinam  District.\n\n3.    The Superintendent of Prisons,  Central Prison, Trichi.\n\n4.    The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.\n\n5.    The Section Officer, Criminal side Section, High Court, Madras.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nC. NAGAPPAN, J.\nAND\nM.JEYAPAUL, J.\n\nVks\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCRL.A.No.211\/2009\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n14.10.2009<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.10.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Crl.A.No. 211 of 2009 1. Sekar 2. Krishnamurthy 3. Senthil 4. Kittu alias Krishnamurthy .. Appellants\/Accused Nos.1 to 4 Vs. State, rep. by […]<\/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-60616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - 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\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-16T05:52:59+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T05:52:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3482,\"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\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T05:52:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - 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\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-16T05:52:59+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T05:52:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009"},"wordCount":3482,"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\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009","name":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T05:52:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sekar-vs-state-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sekar vs State on 14 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/60616","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=60616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}