9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-Inspector of Police (PW.1) that on 29.4.1997 at about 9.00 A.M., when she tried to wake up deceased, G. Arulmozhi, who was sleeping in the other room of the flat, he misbehaved with her and thus A-1 tried to get out of his clutches in order to save herself. As she could not succeed in her attempt, she got the hammer lying in the room and hit him on his head. On hearing her cries, her husband Raghuraman (A.2) came at the spot and also hit deceased several times on his head with the same hammer and thus, the deceased suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, Rama Raghuraman (A.1) went to the nearby hospital and informed Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3) that her brother was seriously injured on the head and she brought him to examine the deceased. Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3) came to her flat and after examining the injured, he advised that he should be taken to the hospital immediately. An ambulance was called and with the help of two attendants, Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and Raghuraman (A.2) took the injured to the hospital. He was examined there by the doctors. The doctor also informed the police, on which Mr. V. Narasaiah, Sub Inspector of Police (PW.1) reached the hospital and recorded the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, has submitted that the High Court committed an error by reversing the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial court, wherein, in absence of any eye-witness to the incident, both the respondents had been convicted for committing the murder of G. Arulmozhi; the chain of circumstances was complete and each circumstance pointed out towards the guilt of the respondents. The deceased was in the flat which has been taken by the respondents on rent. None of them denied their presence at the relevant point of time, rather they had taken a false plea that Mr. N. Velayudham, brother-in-law of deceased, (PW.8), had come on the same day by air at Hyderabad and had tried to convince the deceased not to live with the respondents, instead to get married with the girl of the choice of his father, as his family members were under the belief that he had developed illicit relationship with the accused Rama Raghuraman (A.1). The defence taken by the accused was contrary to their own case pleaded in the bail application that the deceased tried to molest Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and, therefore, she became wild and lost all control and picked up a hammer lying in the room and caused injur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admitted facts available on the record are that Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and Raghuraman (A.2) had passed out their engineering course from IIT, Bombay and got married on 10.9.1989. Out of this wedlock they had two children at the time of incident. They were not having good relations, as is evident from the averments contained in the divorce petition filed by Rama Raghuraman (A.1) against her husband Raghuraman (A.2) in the Family Court at Madras. The deceased had been employed in the Indian Oil Corporation as an Executive Assistant to the Executive Director. The deceased came in contact with Raghuraman (A.2) who had his own organization known as Pixel Graphics Multimedia at Madras. As the business of Raghuraman (A.2) was in trouble, the deceased helped him financially. The deceased resigned from his job and floated a company, namely, Indian Creations dealing in the Multimedia presentation field alongwith Rama Raghuraman (A.1). The deceased shifted his residence from the Chennai to H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner submits that what happened was sad and a great tragedy and neither she nor her husband had any idea that such a sort of thing would happen. They realised only after the incident happened. (Emphasis added) 9. The trial court rejected the evidence of Dr. Ramachander Rao (PW.9) for giving two different versions with regard to the weapons. However, the court considered the following incriminating circumstances against the accused : I) The deceased was with the accused in their flat on the fateful day. II) The deceased received fatal injuries in the same flat which ultimately led to his death. III) Rama Raghuraman (A.1) approached Dr. U.Srinivas (PW.3) immediately after the incident and brought him to the flat and Dr. U.Srinivas (PW.3) deposed that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the doors and windows were closed and there was complete darkness inside at 9 O'Clock in the morning. Unless the accused had some guilty conscience, there was no need to close all the doors and windows at 9 A.M. IV) The weapon i.e. MO. 1 seized at the instance of Rama Raghuraman (A.1), though such a hammer is not generally found in the household. V) The seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 3 cms long obliquely placed over the left frontal region. 2) Sutured wound 1-1/2 cms long over right front parietal region. 3) Sutured wound 10 cms long over the right front parietal region. 4) Sutured wound with surrounding abraded laceration 4 x 2-1/2 cms with two sutured over left parietal region. 5) Sutured wound 4 cms long over posterior left parietal region. 6) Sutured wound 5 cms long over the occipital region. 7) Three sutured wounds 2 cms 8 cms and 4 cms over occipital region. 8) Abrasion 15 x cms over outer aspect of left upper arm. 9) Contusion scalp over right frontal right parietal left parietal left frontal and occipital areas with parietal haemotoma. Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy (PW.18) opined that the deceased died due to head injuries and those injuries could be caused by a weapon like M.O.1 hammer. He has further stated that all the injuries mentioned in the above post mortem report are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. 13. This Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287, considered various aspects of dealing with a case of acquittal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is `against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. Thus, unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. 14. So far as the issue of setting aside the conviction under Section 120-B IPC against both the respondents and not framing the charge under any other penal provision is concerned - it has to be considered, as to whether conviction under any other provision for which the charge has not been framed, is sustainable in law. The issue is no longer res integra and has been considered by the Court from time to time. The accused must be aware as to what is the case against them and what defence they could lead. Unless the parties satisfy the Court that there has been a failure of justice from non framing of charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice has been caused to them, conviction under such provision of law is sustainable. (Vide: Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1973 SC 2221) 15. This Court in Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent ... In short our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the courts below. Certainly, in the last analysis reasonable doubts must operate to the advantage of the appellant... We are of the considered view that the High Court unnecessarily shown misplaced sympathy in a case where conviction was eminent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are the only persons who could explain as under what circumstances the deceased suffered the grievous injuries on the vital parts of his body. The court has to draw its own inference considering the totality of the circumstances. 18. In State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Anr., AIR 1974 SC 1570, this Court held: ....... the Civil Law rule of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
