LexSTATE OF KERALA versus ANILACHANDRAN @ MADHU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KERALA v. ANILACHANDRAN@ MAOHU 153 AND ORS. j_ and his mother PW3 and that in view of their common A object they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons like dagger, sword, iron rod, iron bar etc. and assaulted PW1 's father, PW1 and PW3 which resulted in the death of PW1 's father and injuries to PWs 1 and 3. B Placing reliance on the evidences of PWs1 and 3, the ~ trial court convicted the accused-respondents under ss.302, 323 and 324 IPC. On appeal, the High Court held that the evidence of PWs1 and 3 did not inspire c confidence; that the original FIR produced in Court was not a complete document as a vital part of it had been removed and that there was considerable delay in sending the report to the llaka Magistrate and accordingly acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence the present D appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate sometimes afford opportunity to introduce improvement E and embellishment thereby resulting in a distorted version of the occurrence. Section 157 Cr.P.C. mandates that the report should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. That itself indicates the urgency. It needs to be noted here that where an explanation is offered by the prosecution F for the delay, that has to be tested. The unexplained delay by itself may not be fatal, but is a certainly relevant aspect ... which can be taken note of while considering the role of the accused persons for the offence. [Para 7] [159-A-C] Pal Singh and another v. State of Punjab AIR (1972) SC G 2679 and Swaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab AIR (1976) SC 2304, referred to. 2. In the instant case the High Court found that not only the document appeared to be suspicious but in H 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A addition there was considerable delay in sending it to llaka Magistrate. Added to the aforesaid aspects, the noticeable variation in the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 have been highlighted by the High Court. The role played by PWs.1 and 3 while the deceased was being assaulted B have been analysed in great detail. The High Court has noticed that even if the prosecution version about the role of A.1 is accepted to be true, since the genesis of the incident has not been established, it will be unsafe to record his conviction. The High Court has noticed that c crime was not committed in the manner as suggested by the prosecution and the genesis of the incident is not established. Even if a plea of alibi is set up by the accused and is discarded, that does not take away the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable 0 doubt that the accused persons were guilty. It is certainly the duty of the persons who plead alibi to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because the accused was not able to prove his defence, it cannot be presumed that the prosecution case is proved against him. Above being so, E this is not a case in which interference is called for. [Paras 8 and 9] [159-C-G] F Case Law Reference: AIR 1972 SC 2679 AIR 1976 SC 2304 Para 7 Para 7 referred to referred to CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 32-33 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.10.2001 of the High G Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. Ar9eal No. 444/1999 & 529 of 1999. G. Prakash for the Appellants. H Mathai M. Paikecfay, Shishir Pinaki and Sanjay Jain for the - + STATE OF KERALA v. ANILACHANDRAN@ MAOHU 155 AND ORS. Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is A to the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Five accused B persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short the 'IPC'). 2. All the accused persons denied their involvement in the C crime. Learned First Additional Sessions . Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found A 1 to A4 guilty, while AS was acquitted. The following convictions and sentences were recorded: "A.1 to A.4 are found guilty and A.1 is convicted and o sentenced to undergo R.1 for one month u/s 341 and also is sentenced to undergo R.I for one year u/s. 323 IPC and is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo R.1 for 3 year~ u/s. 302 IPC A2 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.