LexC. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 10 S.C.R. 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008) AUGUST 30, 2010 [G. S. SINGHVI AND DR. B.S .. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 302, 3021114, 307 and 3071114 - Three of the members of a group of agitators setting ablaze a University bus full of girl-students - Three girls burnt alive to death and several others received burn injuries - HELD: Cowts below rightly convicted and sentenced the three accused to death 0 - Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree - The manner of the commission of the offence is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel - : It is sho_cking to the collective conscience of society - Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of death - Aggravating and E mitigating circumstances - Explained. SS. 1471148, 341 /PC and SS. 3 and 4 of TN (POL) Act, 1982 rlw s. 149 - /PC Offences committed by a group of agitators - Conviction and sentence by trial court - Sentence directed to run consecutively - High Court directing F sentences to run concurrently - HELD: The maximum sentence to be served by the accused as per High Court judgment being 2 years and accused having served 14 months of sentence, in the circumstances of the case, sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Tamil G Nadu (Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Laggers, Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders Activities, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Videopirate) Act, 1982. · Evidence: H 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 263 Discrepancies in evidence - HELD: An undue A importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Hostile witness - Evidence of - HELD: cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. B Extra-judicial confessional statement - Exhibiting of - C Explained. Investigation: Irregularities in investigation - HELD: In the instant case, irregularities-committed in the investigation by the earlier I. Os. have too little _relevance on the merits of the case an9 the material of earlier investigations has rightly been not relied upon by the ·subsequent Investigating Officer. Obligation on trial court in case of defective investigation - HELD: Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial - Where there has been negligence or omissions etc. on the part of the investigating agency, which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such /apses and examine whether the lapses had affected the prosecution case: D E F Test identification parade - HELD: Is a part of investigation and provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables G the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence - Holding the test identification H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 10 S.C.R. A parade is not substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime - However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy 8 evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained - It is a rule of prudence which is required to . be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 9 - Test identification parade. C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.195 - Cognizance by court, of offence punishable uls 188 /PC - HELD: The provisions of s.195 are mandatory - Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all o other consequential orders - Law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 /PC unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent public servant - In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction - However, non- E compliance of s. 195 would have no bearing on the prosecution case so far charges for other offences are concerned - Penal Code, 1860 -
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.