CASE BRIEF: MANI vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU.
Deciding authority : Supreme Court of India.
Case no : Appeal (crl.) 443 0f 2006.
Bench : Justice P.P Naoleker and Justice V.S Sirpurkar.
FACTS:
This is an appeal challenging the conviction of A.1 Mani under S.302 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and also under S.34 and S.201 of IPC. Originally there were two accused A1 Mani and A2 Moyyasamy. The accused A2 Moyyasamy and the deceased father Arunachalam(PW.1) are brothers whose relation was strained over a dispute of cattle trespass which took place on 19.9.1996. on an argument A2 stabbed at the neck of Arunachalam, PW1, which was settled by themselves. On 24.11.1996, accused A1 Mani visited the deceased, Sivakumar’s home and both left the home around 6.00 p.m. since the deceased did not return, his father went to the A1 home and found blood stream oozing from the door frame. The next day he found his son’s dead body in the field of PW.5 Chinnamal. The same was reported to the police who started the investigation on 25.11.1996 and the A1 was arrested and by obtaining the police custody, blood stained shirt and weapon (Aruvol) was seized as a result of discovery of statements. Subsequently A2 was arrested on 8.12.1996 and also seized a blood stain shirt of him. However the High Court of Madras held that,
- The motive for committing the murder was not sufficiently attributed.
- There was no incident subsequent to 19.9.1996 to prove the existence of motive to commit murder.
- There is no established fact and evidence of the close association of A1 and A2, therefore making the A1 to commit murder.
- The Court also disbelieves the fact that the discovery of blood stained shirt of A2 due to lack of evidence.
Thus the Court acquitted the A2 Moyyasamy, due to lack of evidence and dismissed the appeal of A1 Mani.
JUDGEMENT:
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that there was no motive on the part of the appellant and the prosecution failed to establish the close relation between the appellant and the A2 who was acquitted by the High Court, who was infact stabbed the PW.1 Arunachalam subsequent to the incident. The appellant herein is neither connected to the trespass incident nor the subsequent act. It is also to be noted that the time of death was not determined by medical evidence and the prosecution also failed to prove the house from which the articles and blood strain was found belongs to the accused A1 Mani. The articles seized with blood stains were also farce and the question of delay in reporting to the police is also to be accounted.
It was countered by the senior earned counsel from the prosecution side that the case is of circumstantial evidence and it is proved that he alone and not anybody else is responsible for the murder.
From the light of the arguments made, the Bench concluded that there was no circumstance to prove that the murder was committed by the appellant, except for the reason he was the one who took Sivakumar, the deceased lastly with him. The articles such as Koduval and the blood stained shirt seized by the police neither serves as an evidence that it belonged to the appellant. Moreover it is clearly stated in the examination under S.313 of Crpc, by the accused that the house does not belong to him and in the examination made at the trial court the witnessPW.6 Ganesan contradicted his statement in the cross examination that he was not aware whether the house belong to the appleant and the failure of PW.15 Govindhan, Investingating Officer to enquire the village administrator, on whose name the house is registered.
DECISION:
From the inference made above the Court concluded that the prosecution has submitted only a weak kind of evidence and the appeal was allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and order for the acquittal of the accused was made.
BY,
A.SRI RAMYA, V YEAR, SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW.