The trial court further convicted the appellants herein under Section 109 read with Section 201, Section 109 read with Section 182 and Sections 120B and 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the different periods under the said Sections. Ravi was inside his cabin and Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) were sitting in the office outside his cabin. Ravi from Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3), who were employees of the deceased.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
Accused Nagoor Meeran (since deceased), who was standing outside with the other accused persons, attempted to 4 stab Kumar (PW-1). As per the prosecution case, Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) returned to the office of the deceased M.R. The trial court, vide judgment dated 14 November 2007, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as aforesaid.
The High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19 February 2009, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court insofar as accused Nos. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants herein that the conviction is recorded basically on the evidence of Kumar (PW- 1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3), who are alleged to be the eye witnesses.
Aristotle submitted that the evidence of all the three eye witnesses, i.e., Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3) is consistent. Though, he states that he knows the accused, however, he admitted that he has not given any details as to whether the accused persons were tall, short, dark or fair.
Syed Jamal (PW-23), the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station admitted in his evidence that he had not seized the blood-stained clothes of the witnesses. Syed Jamal (PW-23) further admitted that when he enquired with Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3), he did not mention anything regarding the identification marks, body structure and clothes of the accused persons. From the evidence of Kumar (PW-1), Palani 11 (PW-2) and Sivalingam (PW-3), Syed Jamal (PW-23) and M. After the completion of the identification parade, when I asked Arikrishnan, whether there were any objections about identification parade he stated that the Investigating Officer and Sub Inspector kept them under custody in Korattur Police Station for eight days for identification of the 12 witnesses.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/
Malarvizhi (PW-4) further admitted that when she asked accused No.4 Harikrishnan @ Hari whether there were any objections about TIP, he stated that the IO and the Sub-Inspector of Police had kept them under custody in Korattur Police Station for eight days for identification of the witnesses.
physically, through photographs or via media (newspapers, television, etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence ( Lal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 9] and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v.
This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality ( 1999 Rajesh Govind Jagesha v.
State, (2007) 15 SCC 372 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 730] ).” A perusal of the evidence of Malarvizhi (PW-4), Syed Jamal (PW-23) and M.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.
Case Title: STALIN @ SATALIN SAMUVEL Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2023 INSC 52)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000636-000636 / 2010
