LexKANNIKA versus MOOKAIAH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009) 2 S.C.R. 394 ,, A KANN I KA v. ~ MOOKAIAH & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : \ c ss. 306 and 294(8) - Conviction by trial court- Acquittal by appellate court- Conviction restored by High Court, in revision- On appeal held: Order of the High Court, was passed without taking into consideration delay in lodging FIR and delay in dispatch thereof to the concerned court and also scope and D ambit of s. 401 (3) Cr.PC. - Matter remitted to High Court. Appellant-accused was convicted by trial court u/ss. +. 306 and 2949 (8) IPC. Appellate court directed his acquittal. In revision, High Court restored the conviction. E In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that High Court order was passed without taking into consideration the delay in lodging FIR and further delay in dispatch of the same to the concerned court and also the scope and ambit of s. 401 (3) Cr. P.C .. ,... ·- F Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court. HELD: The prosecution was required to explain the delay which is quite large. It is to be noted that the dying declaration was purportedly recorded by the police G constable and the Magistrate on 6.5.1999. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was lodged after a week. :t )'- The same was dispatched after 40 days. This position has not been disputed by the respondents. Above being the H 394 ..... ,J. ...... 'f KANN I KA V. MOOKAIAH & ANR. 395 position, the matter is remitted to High Court to consider A the effect of the delay in lodging FIR and the delay in dispatching of the same to the concerned court. The scope and ambit of Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. shall also be kept in view, while dealing with the matter. [Para-7-8] [ 399- E, ~ G] B CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiriminalAppeal No. 286 of 2009 From the final Judgement and Order dated 18.7.2007 of the High Court of Madras in Criminal R.C. No. 499 of 2005 V. Kanagaraj, M.A. Chinnasamy, with him for the Appellant. R. Neduraman, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1 . Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal was the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the informant- the respondent No.1. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District had convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 294(8) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short the 'IPC') so far as the accused No.1, appellant herein is concerned and Section 306 IPC and 323 IPC so far as accused No.2 is concerned. 3. Questioning correctness of the judgment an appeal was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court II Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, who directed acquittal of the accused persons. The complainant filed a revision petition which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision and restored the conviction as recorded by the trial court but the sentence imposed was reduced. 4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant c D E F G H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. . A submitted that the view taken by the- High Court is clearly unsustainable. Various important aspects have been brushed , aside. B 5. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: PW2 is a resident of Vikramasingapuram. Murugammal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the daughter of PWs.·2 and 3. PW3 is the wife of PW2. PW4 is the brother of Murugammal~ PW1 i~ a friend of PW4. On 5.5.1999 at about c 2.15 p.m., the first accused Kannika came to the house of PW2 and shouted that his daughter had rang up asking for her son . Rajesh, and spoke insultingly. At that time, the second accused attempted to strangulate PW2 with a towel. Then, he shouted for help. But otherswho were present there, pacified them. PW5 . 0 was present in the scene of occurrence. Then, the matter was taken to PW6. At that time, .the first accused again came to the house of the victim and scolded against the" complainant party in filthy language.·So, the victim did not tak~ any food and water · afterwaros. On the next day morning, she committed suicide by ·· . ;.p,Ouring ·kerosene on herself. It was informed to PW1. A E · · mi·su11derstanding between the parti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.