CHINNASAMY AND ORS. Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1, 2 and 3 in S.C. No. 96 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. They stood charged for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 24.04.2015, convicted all the three accused under Section 304 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit there is absolutely no evidence in this case to prove that the deceased was either arrested or attacked by any of these accused. The learned counsel would further submit that the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has given clear opinion that the death was due to natural causes. Thus, according to the learned counsel, absolutely there is no evidence against these accused. He would further submit that the trial Court had relied on the case diary in Crime No. 480 of 2006, by reopening the case, after the case was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel would submit that none of the documents, which are referred to in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment, were proved in evidence. Neither they were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would further submit that the lower Court has convicted the accused only out of surmises. He would also point out that the arrest was made only by the Sub Inspector of Police by name Raju, but he was not examined. He would further submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest and laid the report, also has not been examined. He also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate has no authority to hold inquest and file the report, since as per Section 176(1-A) of Cr.P.C. such power is vested only with the Judicial Magistrate to hold inquiry and it is for the police to file a police report on holding thorough investigation.