Case Title – Manikandan vs. State by Inspector of Police
Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2011
Dated on – 5th April, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Facts of the Case –
In the case of Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019, the appellant, Accused No. 1, and in Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2011, the appellant, Accused No. 2, were both convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. The conviction and life sentence imposed by the Trial Court were subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The facts, as presented by the prosecution, indicate that the deceased, Balamurugan, lived with his parents, PW-1 Mahalingam and PW-2 Veerammal. On the night of October 4, 2007, around 9 pm, the deceased inquired whether Accused No. 1 had delivered the idlis he had requested. Upon discovering that the idlis had not been delivered, Balamurugan went to Accused No. 1’s residence, leading to an altercation. Hearing the commotion, PW-2 and PW-3, the deceased’s brother-in-law, arrived at the scene where they saw Accused No. 2 present. During the altercation, Accused No. 1 retrieved a billhook from his house and attacked Balamurugan, initially striking his right index finger. Balamurugan fled to a nearby garden owned by Karunanidhi, pursued by the accused. Accused No. 2 restrained Balamurugan while Accused No. 1 delivered a fatal blow to his neck with the billhook. The accused then absconded from the scene. The incident was witnessed by PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 (sister of PW-1), and PW-5 (son of PW-4).
Legal Provisions –
- Section 302 of IPC, 1860
- Section 34 of IPC, 1860
- Section 304 of IPC, 1860
- Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, 1860
Contentions of the Appellant –
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that discrepancies existed regarding the timing of the incident. The first information report indicated that the incident occurred at 10:30 pm, whereas the post-mortem notes suggested the time of death was before 7 pm. Additionally, the counsel contended that the prosecution relied solely on witnesses closely related to the deceased, who were biased and potentially tutored, despite the availability of independent eyewitnesses. This, according to the counsel, undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The counsel further argued that the deceased instigated the confrontation by visiting Accused No. 1’s house to inquire about the undelivered idlis, leading to a fight. He highlighted that the post-mortem report showed only one cut injury to the neck and a minor injury to the finger, suggesting a sudden altercation without premeditation. The counsel posited that this scenario fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, arguing that the offense should be classified under Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, as it involved a sudden fight without premeditation.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that the testimonies of PW-2 to PW-5 were consistent and devoid of any significant contradictions or omissions, thereby lending credibility to their evidence. The counsel argued that the actions of Accused No. 1, who retrieved a billhook from his house and used it to assault the deceased following a dispute, demonstrated a clear intent to cause harm. The sequence of events, wherein Accused No. 1 inflicted an initial blow to the deceased’s index finger, followed by a pursuit during which Accused No. 2 restrained the deceased allowing Accused No. 1 to deliver a fatal blow to the neck, indicated premeditation and collaboration. Consequently, the counsel asserted that Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC was inapplicable, as the assault was neither spontaneous nor without intent to cause serious injury.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upon reviewing the evidence of key prosecution witnesses, noted several critical inconsistencies and procedural issues. PW-1, the father of the deceased, did not witness the incident. PW-2, the mother, introduced new allegations during her examination-in-chief and admitted under cross-examination that she, along with other key witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5), were instructed by police on how to testify the day before their court appearances. This admission suggests that these witnesses were tutored by the police, compromising the integrity of their testimonies. PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5, all related to the deceased, provided accounts consistent with PW-2, further casting doubt due to their potential bias and the tutoring admission. The court found the police’s act of tutoring witnesses to be a gross misuse of power and interference with the judicial process. The failure to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability, further undermined the prosecution’s case, necessitating an adverse inference against it. Given these significant doubts, the court concluded that the benefit of doubt should favor the appellants. Noting that the appellants had already served over 10 years in incarceration before being granted bail, the court determined that both the Sessions Court and the High Court erred in their convictions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments and orders were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court also directed the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu to conduct an enquiry into the police’s conduct and take appropriate action against the erring officials.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das
