V. MANIKANDAN @ KUTTI @ MANI Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.4, MADURAVOYAL POLICE STATION,CHENNAI.(CR.NO.621 OF 2010)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the second accused in S.C. No. 261 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. There were two other accused by name Prakash and Selvam, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 3 respectively. According to the final report filed by the police, there were totally five persons involved in the crime. Two others by name Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Venkatesh @ Venkatesan were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and therefore the case against them was split up and dealt with separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the appellant (2nd accused) and the accused 1 and 3 faced the trial before the lower Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 364, 302 and 201 r/w 149 I.P.C. The trial Court found that the first accused Prakash was also a juvenile in conflict with law and therefore referred his case to the Juvenile Justice Board. By judgment dated 15.09.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused 2 and 3 alone under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant / second accused alone has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2. 1. The juveniles in conflict with law Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Venkatesh @ Venkatesan have got a sister by name Durga. The deceased in this case was one Mr. Ramesh. The deceased had a one side love for Ms. Durga. On few occasions, the deceased, met Ms. Durga and harassed her to respond to his love. Durga informed the same to Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Venkatesh @ Venkatesan. They got wild. The first accused herein Mr. Prakash and the second accused Mr. Manikandan @ Mani @ Kutty had enmity already with the deceased. Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Venkatesh @ Venkatesan joined hands with the accused 1 and 2 and they decided to do away with the deceased. The 3rd accused was known to the accused 1 and 2. They took the help of the third accused also to execute their intention. 2. 2. It is further alleged that on 17.09.2010 around 06.00 p.m. the deceased was talking to one Mr.Dinesh near Kanniamman temple at Kanniamman Nagar. One Madhavi (P.W.4) is a friend of Ms.Durga. As requested by these accused, by playing deception on the deceased, Madhavi took the deceased to the ration shop at Odama Nagar. All these accused including the juveniles from Odama Nagar, by force, took the deceased to Vanagaram and near the bypass bridge they attacked him. The accused 1 and 2 attacked him with wooden logs and the third accused attacked him with stones. The deceased fell down. They dropped huge stones on the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. They pushed the body into a nearby drainage and they put few stones on the body of the deceased and immersed the body into the water. Then, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody. 2. 3. P.W.1, is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased was working as a carpenter. On 17.09.2010, he went for work and in the evening he did not return. Then, she enquired Mr.Dinesh (P.W.3) a friend of the deceased. P.W.3 told her that the deceased had fallen in love with Durga and he went to the house of Durga and found that the deceased was not available anywhere. After sometime, P.W.3 told her that the deceased was taken by the brothers of Durga. Even thereafter, the deceased was not seen anywhere. Therefore, on 20.09.2010 at 08.30 a.m. she made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station. 2. 4. On the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.621 of 2010 for boy missing. Ex.P12 is the F.I.R. and Ex.P.1 is the complaint. He forwarded both the documents to Court which was received by the learned Magistrate at 09.30 p.m. on 20.09.2010. 2. 5. The investigation was taken up by P.W.18 the then Sub Inspector of Police. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses. But no breakthrough could be made out of the same. On 20.09.2010, in the afternoon, P.Ws.8 and 9 found the dead body of the deceased in the drainage. They informed P.W.18 about the same. P.W.18 went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body and confirmed that it was the body of the deceased. Then he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. 2. 6. One Dr. Anbuselvam conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital on 21.09.2010. Dr. Anbuselvam could not be examined and therefore P.W.17, the Head of Department had deposed about the postmortem conducted by Dr. Anbuselvam. According to P.W.17 Dr. Anbuselvam had found the following injuries:

(3.) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side, one Devagi was examined as D.W.1. She has spoken about the date of birth of the first accused Prakash. Ex.D1 is the school certificate pertaining to the first accused. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused 2 and 3 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, the appellant / the second accused alone is before this Court with this appeal. The third accused filed a separate appeal in Crl.A.No.211 of 2016 and by judgment dated 02.08.2016, this Court allowed the said appeal and acquitted him.