CASE ANALYSIS

The Inspector of Police Taluk Police station at Chengalpattu in Crime Number of 2005
submitted that on 25.06.2005 at 5.30 p.m the deceased A1 and A2 along with A3 and A4
trespassed in to the shop of Murugan and A1 with a Knife put the de-facto complaintunder
threat or fear of causing death demanded Mamool for a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupeestwo thousand
only). The de-facto complaint attempted to flee is wrongfully restrained byall the four. The
Accused No.1 with an intention to cause death assaulted de-factocomplaint with Knife. All the
Accused criminally intimidated the de-facto complaint. There by Charge sheet is filed for the
offences alleged under Sections 387, 452, 341, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C against all the
Accused.On the appearance of the accused persons before this Court, I satisfied myselthat free
copies of police records, on which the prosecution proposed to rely upon its casewere furnished
to them, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutoopened the case
under Section 226of Cr.P.C. The defence counsels were also heard. Charges u/s Accused No.
3 under Sections 387 ,452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C., and Accused No. 4 under Sections 387 ,452,
341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. were framed against the Accused read over and explained in Tamil. When
questioned with regard to the substance of the charges, the Accused person pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.The defence taken is that the accused persons had no connection with
the alleged offences and it is a false case.On the side of the prosecution, to prove the guilt of
the Accused person, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The Material
Object No.I is also marked. The defence side did not adduced oral or documentary evidence
and made an endorsement to that effect.The case of the prosecution as per the evidence of
prosecution witnesses:The Lw1 is Kumar. He is arrayed as a witnesses to speak about
occurence, complaint preferred by him and the injuries sustained as outcome of said incident.
The Lw1 is examined as PW1.

He deposed before the Court that, the marginally noted accused are belongs to his
Village and unable to re-call the date of occurence and occurence. So the signature of de-facto
complainant alone is marked as Ex P1.The Lw2 is Thinakaran and has been arrayed for purpose
of speaking about incident and to support Pw1. The Lw3 is Jagadha arrayedas an witnesses to
speak about incident and other details. The L.W 2 and 3 are examined as Pw2 and Pw3. They
both deposed that they do not know any thing about facts. They both went to Hospital after
coming to know through here say about occurence and seen the de-facto complaint.The LW4
is Murugan and he is cited to speak about occurence, injuries sustained in the occurence. The
LW 5 and LW6 are Duraikannu and Manigandan who are cited as witnesses to speak about
preparation of Magazor by the Investigation Officer in their presence and also signing the
document as witnesses. The Lw 7 and Lw8 are Kanniyappan and Joseph cited as witnesses to
speak about confession, Seizure Magazor by the Investigation Officer in their presence and
also recording the Confession Statement from Accused. The Lw 9 and Lw 10 are Doctors cited
to speak about treatment given to injured and also issuance of wound certificate. These
Witnesses are dispensed with the prosecution.The Lw10 is Inspector of Police Mr. Kanniah.
He is examined as Pw4. He has deposed that while he was in duty at ChengalPattu Taluk Police
Station during 2005 he received a complaint and registered a case in Crime Number 235/2005
and he took up the case and Proceeded for Investigation . The complaint is marked as Ex.P2.
The First Information Report is marked as Ex.P3. He went to Scene of Occurence and prepared
Observation Magazor , Sketch in the presence of witnesses namelyMurugan and Raviverma,
Kumar. The Sketch is marked as Ex P4 . He recorded statement from witnesses cited in the list.

After arrest of A1 and recorded voluntary confession statement in the presence of

witnesses. The Guilt portion in confession statement of Accused , Bhoopathy is marked as Ex
P6. The Seizure Magazor is marked as Ex P5. Form 95 are marked as Ex P7. The properties
are handed over to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The injured was admitted in Chengalpattu
Government hospital . He recorded statement from Doctor Dhinagar Moses and Jagan Mohan,
who gave first aid treatmen to victim. The Doctor Dhinagar Moses and Jagan Mohan who
treated injured was examined. The Charge Sheet was submitted against Accused No. 1 to 4
under Sections 387 , 452, 341, 307, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. The Final Report is prepared submitted
to Judicial Magistrate.The Accused No. 3 and 4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
on the incriminating circumstances against them in the evidence.

They denied them as false and have stated that they have no defence witnesses to be
examined on their side. The Point for Determination is Whether the prosecution has proved the
guilt of the Accused No- 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubts as per the charges levelled
against the Accused under Sections 387 ,452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. ? Heard both sides
arguments. Perused the case records. It is the case of prosecution that all the Four Accused
came to the shop of Murugan with a knife under the threat of fear and demanded a sum of
Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only). Accused No.1 (deceased) attacked Murugan with a
intention to cause death and attacked with Knife The A1 to A4 Criminally intimated. A charge
sheet is filed under Sections 387 ,452, 341, 307, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. To prove the guilt against
Accused the prosecution side examined Pws No-1 to 4 and marked Ex P1 to P8, Material
Objects No.1 marked. On the side of the defence, No evidence is adduced. The Prosecution
side has cited the witnesses namely Pw1 to Pw3 are as Eye witnesses, direct witnesses. The
Pw1 is a Victim and De-facto Complainant . The Pw2 and Pw3 are Eye witnesses. On
scrutinization of Prosecution side evidences the case of prosecution that A1 to A4 entered into
shop of Murugan demanded mamul for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, wrongfully restrained, Criminal
intimidation to cause death is not spelled out by any of the oral testimonies.The Complaint is
preferred by Pw1. The First Information Report is based upon complaint given by Pw1. The
First Information Report sets Criminal law in motion. Both are cause and root to set the
investigation process.

Therefore the author of complaint is examined as Pw1. The Pw1 disowned the contents
of complaint by stating that the document is signed as per instructions. Furthermore he denied
about knowledge as to occurence. He expressed ignorance regarding facts. In said
circumstances, this Court has no option other than to determine that prosecution fails to prove
the case. The evidence of Pw1 does not find incriminating Materials against accused. It is
important to note that A1 and A2 are died and the Committal Court abated charges as against
deceased persons. The offences under Sections 307 is charged only as against deceased
Accused No.1. The case of prosecution is deceased Boopathy as given Voluntary confession
and the admitted portion of guilt is marked as Pw4. The Confession Statement is recorded by
the Police subsequent to arrest does not amount to voluntariness. Furthermore the movements
of accused during the period of Confession Statement is absolutely within the control of Police.
So, the Statement at this juncture could not be considered as voluntary.

The Confession Statement is not sufficient to incriminate A3 and A4. The Sketch
regarding seen of occurence is marked as Ex.P4. The Observation Magazor is not marked . The
Observation Magazor is necessary to explain the place of occurence. The time regarding
visiting seen of occurence and noting down is not mentioned. The date and time regarding
preparation of sketch is absent. The purpose of sketch is to visualize place of occurence. When
the sketch is prepared is not proved. When the Investigation Officer visited Place of occuerence
and prepared the sketch are all facts suppressed by the prosecution. These facts are absolutely
necessary and vital for Investigation process. The failure to produce observation Magazor is
fatal to prosecution. The date of occurence is 25 .6.2005 and the sketch is dated at 13.7.2006.
If the Investigation Officer visisted the place on the same day of investigation commencement
then there cannot be a delay of one year in sending the document to the Court. The delay
committed in sending document to the Court would show that material and vital facts are
suppressed by prosecution. Furthermore the preparation of site plan after visiting the seen of
occurence soon after registering First Information Report is not proved by prosecution. The
prosecution suffers major said fact to prove their case on this context. The Seizure Magazor is
marked as Ex.P5. According to the document the properties Knife is seized from Accused No.1
in the presence of Kanniyappan and Joseph. The said Kanniyappan and Joseph are not
examined.

The document would show that description regarding birth and inch, is added
subsequently. The scriber of entire contents of the document and last line are not one and the
same. The particulars regarding inches is over written. The Doctors are dispensed with and
witnesses to seizure Magazor are also dispensed with. The evidence of Doctor is important for
purpose of narrating that the injuries found on de- facto complaint could possibly occur due to
the Weapons seized from Accused. In all aspects the prosecution fails to prove Seizure
Magazor and also the Material Objects. Comparision of Seizure Magazor and Form 95. The
factum regarding size of Knife is over written, altered and whitened. These act of over written,
altered and whitened would make the evidence absolutely incrediable. The said corrections
omissions alterations are not culdoubt from the mouth of Investigation Officer. All the facts
and circumstances would make the evidences regarding factum of seizure, Material Objects are
absolutely incredible. The Accident Register and Medical Opinion are marked as Ex.P7 and
Ex.P8. The Doctors are not examined. The Accident Register would show that injured is
attacked and assaulted by four known persons. In order to prove the case the prosecution fails
to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate their version. The Investigation Officer is
examined as Pw4. The prosecution fails to prove the case through independent witnesses, direct
evidence. In the absence of substantiate evidence the evidences of Investigation Officer fails
for want of corroboration. There cannot be a conviction in the absence of substantiate evidence.
The evidence of Pw4 is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. The prosecution
evidences are absolutely insufficient to prove that A3 and A4 along with A1 to A4 put the
witnesses/ Murugan under the threat of fear of death by A1 with a Knife demanded a mamool
amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) at the shop of Murugan.

There is no evidence on the part of prosecution to bring home the offence under
Sections 387 of I.P.C as against Accused No. 3 and It is significant to note that none of the
witnesses on the side of prosecution that A1 to A4 criminally trespassed into the house of
Murugan in order to attack him for refusing to heed the demand. In short the evidences are
absolutely insufficient to prove the fact A3 and A4 along with A1 and A2 commits the act of
criminal trespass with an intention to attack de-facto complaint for refusal to give
mamool.There is no evidences to substantiate that A3 and A4 along with A1 and A2 chased
the PW1 who tried to flee from the place of occurrence and wrongfully restrained by the
accused. The essential ingredients contemplated under section 341 is not fullfilled. The
testimonies are absolutely contra to the case of prosecution Even the victim expressed
ignorance regarding the occurence. So there is no case made out to sustain conviction against
A3 and A4 under Section 506 (ii) of I.P.C. The prosecution fails to prove the occurence. The
evidences of Pw1 to Pw4, Ex.P1 to ExP8 , Material Objects No.I are absolutely insufficient to
sustain conviction as against A3 and A4. The Prosecution fails in all aspects. In all aspects the
Prosecution fails to prove the offences alleged and Charged against Accused . The Accused No
3 and 4 are entitled for Acquittal for the Offences Charged under Sections 387 ,452, 341, 506
(ii) of I.P.C.The points are determined accordingly as against the prosecution.

In the result, the prosecution fails to prove offences alleged against Accused No- 3
under sections 387 ,452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C., Accused No. 4 under sections 387 ,452, 341,
506 (ii) of I.P.C. Accused No. 3 and 4 are not found guilty. Accused No-3 under sections 387
, 452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. and Accused No.4 under sections 387 ,452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C.
are not found guilty for the offences charged and Acquitted from the offences under sections
387 ,452, 341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. The Accused No-3 and 4 are Acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
The case property Knife is received by learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu in
P.I.No.281 of 2005 is marked as Material Objects No.I. The Material Object shall be
retained until Appeal time is over. After lapse of Appeal time the Material Object shall be
destroyed as it is in damaged condition. Bail Bond, if any, executed by the Accused and the
sureties shall stand terminated after Appeal time is over.