MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Justice to all" is one of the salutary goals of our Constitution. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution permits deprivation of life and liberty by following the established fair, just and reasonable procedure. Fair investigation, fair and speedy trial and just verdict are the concomitants of right to life. Such right is not exclusive for the accused. The victim, their family members and the society at large are also entitled to have a fair trial and just verdict. Under the guise of being fair to the accused, no Court can afford to be unfair towards the victims and the witnesses. At the whims and fancies of the accused, the witnesses cannot be harassed by summoning them to Court repeatedly and to humiliate them. Protection of a witness itself is implicit in Article 21. The system should not be diverted heavily in favour of the accused and the agencies who are the part of the system should be sensitive to the plight and the rights of the victims. Allowing the real culprits to escape through the man made holes in the system will surely erode the confidence of the people in the very foundation of the system. The trial Court should ensure that both the accused and the witnesses, including the victims get a fair deal during trial and ultimately justice triumphs. The Court must act positively to discover the truth. With this prelude, let us go into the facts of the case.

(2.) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Selvam. The relationship between him and his brother -in -law one Mr. Kesavan was cordial for sometime/initially. Unfortunately, 20 days prior to the occurrence, there arose a casual wordy quarrel between the deceased Mr. Selvam and Mr. Kesavan. Mr. Kesavan, used certain abusive words against Mr. Selvam casting aspersions on the chastity of Selvam's wife. Provoked by the said words, Mr. Selvam slapped Mr. Kesavan. The accused is the son of Mr. Kesavan. He was present at the time of incident. He shouted at the deceased as to how dare he was to attack his father. He further shouted that he would take revenge on the deceased for the said incident. This was witnessed by P.W.1, the son of the deceased also. The deceased and P.W.1 took it as an empty challenge and they did not take it seriously.

(3.) On 01.11.2010, by about 10.30 p.m., the deceased was returning from his work place. He came in an auto and got down near a temple by the side of his house. The accused was lying in wait with a knife for the deceased. As soon as the deceased got down from the auto, the accused rushed towards him, pulled his shirt and started cutting him with knife. P.W.1 rushed towards him and tried to prevent. The deceased fell down. The accused repeatedly cut him with knife. P.W.1 retreated out of fear and from a short distance, he witnessed the entire occurrence, unable to go to the rescue of his father. The accused, brandished the weapon against P.W.1 and ran away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased died on the spot. P.W.2, a neighbour of the deceased, who was present at the time of occurrence, also witnessed the entire episode.