Site icon Legal Vidhiya

R. BASKAR VS STATE, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBALUR POLICE STATION

Karan Chhetri
Spread the love
CITATION 2013 (2) MLJ 673 (Crl)
DATE 27.03.2013
COURT NAME HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER R.BASKAR
DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERAMBALUR POLICE STATION
JUDGES JUSTICE K.N. BASHAJUSTICE P. DEVADASS

INTRODUCTION – 

I n this case i.e. R. Baskar Vs State, By Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station the appellant was found guilty of an offense under Section 302 IPC for allegedly killing the deceased, who was the spouse of PW1. The prosecution’s case was based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 2, along with PW3, as well as medical evidence. In this matter, the court underscored the necessity for evidence that is clear, credible, and consistent, and emphasized the need for an identification parade to evaluate the accuracy of the witnesses’ identifications. Additionally, it highlighted the importance of promptly and accurately reporting the incident to the police. The issue in this appeal pertains to the decision made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur on 14.06.2012 in S.C.No.89/2011, which convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- or, in default, an additional 2 years of simple imprisonment.

FACTS OF THE CASE – 

The husband of the deceased i.e PW1, Premavathi, served as a watchman, while the deceased held a position as a craft teacher at Moulana School in Perambalur. They had two daughters named Rekha and Priya. Every day, PW 1 would bicycle his wife (the deceased) to her school. The accused, who lived in the same neighbourhood, had been harassing daughter, Rekha, for approximately two years. Rekha had reported this harassment to both her mother (the deceased) and PW1.

Rekha, accompanied by the deceased, confronted the accused near Uzhavar Sandhai, where Rekha identified him as her harasser. The deceased issued a warning to the accused. Fifteen days before the incident, P.W. 1 and the deceased had organized a marriage for Rekha, which had taken place successfully. This event had caused tension between the accused and the deceased’s family. On March 9, 2011, at 8:45 AM, P.W. 1 dropped his wife off at school. Upon his return at 9:30 AM, he heard screams for help. When he looked back, he saw the accused attacking the deceased with an Aruval (a sharp weapon), focusing on her chest and neck. P.W. 1 tried to intervene, but by the time he reached her, the deceased was already deceased. The accused escaped from the scene with the weapon. P.W. 2, an English teacher at the same school as the deceased, witnessed the event. 

P.W. 3, who resided elsewhere, claimed to have seen the accused running with an Aruval around 9:00 AM that same morning. P.W. 1 went to the Perambalur Police Station and informed P.W. 15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, about the incident. P.W. 15 documented the complaint and registered it as Crime No. 137 of 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning murder. The FIR (First Information Report) was recorded as Exhibit P-1, and the Express FIR was noted as Exhibit P-14. Both documents were forwarded to higher authorities and the court. The accused faced murder charges under Section 302 IPC, which involves the unlawful killing of a person with the intention to cause death or with awareness that the action could likely result in death. 

The presence of several witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3) bolsters the case against the accused, especially due to the direct eyewitness accounts from P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The motive for the crime, likely linked to the troubled relationship between the accused and the deceased’s family, bears significant weight. The murder weapon, an Aruval, supposedly used by the accused to carry out the crime, could also be vital evidence connecting the accused to the act. P.W. 16 recovered various items from the crime scene under an official record, which included blood-stained soil, regular soil, a pair of sandals, and a black rexin bag. These items were collected in the presence of witnesses. P.W.16 interviewed several witnesses and documented their statements. The accused was arrest near Samathuvapuram Arch on the same day. Following the arrest, the accused provided an admissible confession, leading to the recovery of an Aruval (a weapon) that was disclosed by the accused.

The accused was brought before the Court for remand, which is a legal procedure to hold the accused in police custody. P.W. 16 interviewed police constables and arranged for the seized items to be chemically examined through the Court. The investigation involved the examination of witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3, including P.W. 12, the doctor. It also included the Postmortem Certificate, Biological Report, and Serological Report. Upon completing the investigation, P.W. 16 submitted the final report on 18.5.2011. This report included a charge of murder (Section 302 IPC) against the accused/appellant.

  ISSUES – 

JUDGMENT 

According to the case here when the accused was interrogated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution, he maintained a complete denial. He chose not to call any witnesses or submit any documents in his defence. The trial judge, after considering and evaluating all the evidence presented by the prosecution, concluded that the accused was guilty and imposed a sentence as described above. This led to the current appeal. Dr. A.E. Chelliah, the senior counsel representing the appellant, vigorously challenged the contested conviction judgment, arguing that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claims through clear, credible, and consistent evidence. He pointed out that the testimonies of eyewitnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 contained significant flaws and contradictions, and that P.W. 3’s testimony was not credible or trustworthy. It was also mentioned that P.W. 1, being the deceased’s husband and an interested witness, could not have been at the crime scene during the incident because he was employed as a Watchman at a college and confirmed that he had signed the Attendance Register on the day of the incident, while failing to clearly specify whether he was on day or evening duty. The prosecution did not obtain the Attendance Register from the college where P.W. 1 was employed, despite his admission of signing it, which allows for an unfavourable inference to be drawn against the prosecution’s case. Although P.W.1 claimed to have lifted the deceased right after the incident, and given that the deceased suffered stab injuries which would have resulted in significant bleeding, P.W. 1 did not produce any blood-stained clothing, nor did the Investigating Officer, P.W. 16, recovered such clothing from him, casting serious doubt on P.W. 1’s presence at the scene. P.W. 1 explicitly mentioned during cross-examination that the police station was merely 10 feet away from the location of the incident, yet he did not report it to the police immediately, and he also admitted to visiting the police station only after a delay of 45 minutes, which raises significant questions about his account and reliability. P.W. 1 also acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not inform anyone about the incident until questioned by the police, a behaviour that is highly unusual and undermines the credibility of his statement. Additionally, P.W. 1 stated in his cross-examination that he had not disclosed the incident to anyone prior to his police interrogation, which is quite unnatural and further casts doubt on the trustworthiness of his account.

The testimony of P.W. 2, another eyewitness, was also highly questionable, and he likely was not present during the incident. If he had indeed been at the scene, P.W. 1 should have mentioned his presence, yet P.W. 1 did not indicate anything about P.W. 2 being there in his evidence. P.W. 1 explicitly admitted in his cross-examination that no witnesses arrived at the location for a duration of 10 minutes after the incident, despite a commotion occurring, whereas P.W. 2 asserted that he was present during the incident, casting significant doubt on P.W. 2’s claim of being at the scene at that time. The prosecution concealed the initial report due to P.W. 2’s acknowledgment that the police came to the scene upon hearing the commotion, as P.W. 2 mentioned that he was questioned by the police at 9:30 a.m. and had his statement documented, while the prosecution asserts that the report was noted only at 9:45 a.m. Given this variation, it was likely that an earlier report could have been taken from P.W. 2 and later suppressed. P.W. 2 disclosed during his cross-examination that he had not previously seen the accused, making the accused unfamiliar to him, and he identified the accused only for the first time in court. Since the prosecution did not conduct any identification parade, the credibility of P.W. 2’s testimony is doubtful and untrustworthy. 

Although P.W. 3 claimed to have seen the accused fleeing with an Aruval following the incident, he did not promptly notify the police and was interrogated at a later time. P.W. 3 also acknowledged that he had not recognized the accused before and only identified him for the first time in court, failing to mention the identifying characteristics of the accused during his police questioning, thus rendering his identification of the accused before the court unreliable. Additionally, the recovery of the Aruval, was suspected as the prosecution has not convincingly demonstrated this through clear evidence.

After listening and cross examining the facts as mentioned by the parties court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Marudhanal Augusti v. State of Kerala AIR 1980 SC 638 that 

       the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the First Information Report is   held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence….

So, the principle established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the mentioned case decision was directly relevant to the circumstances of the present case, as it was examined that there was significant uncertainty regarding the authenticity of the report. Additionally, the F.I.R. in this matter was considered a forged document, and therefore, the entire case against the accused would have fallen apart.

CONCLUSION –

Due to the acquittal, the Court determined that the prosecution did not succeed in proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence submitted was inadequate to establish the appellant’s direct involvement in the crime. Additionally, the appellant’s confession was ruled inadmissible on account of procedural defects. The testimonies provided by witnesses were assessed as unreliable and lacking in corroboration. Consequently, the Court accepted the appellant’s appeal, reversing the earlier conviction and sentence. Following the acquittal, the appellant was free from all charges, and any fines previously paid are to be returned. 

REFRENCES

This article is written by Nidhi Mishra student of CMP Degree College Allahabad University, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version