RASHEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track No,5) Tiruvallur Division made in S.C.No.139 of 2005 dated 14.3.2007. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V,Tiruvallur made in S.C.No.139 of 2005, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo six months S.I.,

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) ACCORDING to PW13, Inspector of Polce,Chengalpet District, the statement was recorded at the hospital at about 1.45 hours and the said statement was also taken to the Police station and a case was also registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel would further add that though the prosecution claimed that Ex.P.2 was a true and genuine document, the evidence of PW4 if carefully scrutinized would indicate that such a document could not be come into existence at all. ACCORDING to PW4, immediately after recording Ex.P.1 document, the accused made an attempt to run away from that place as he was actually secured by the staff of the hospital and thereafter the police officer was present and in the presence of the Police officer, the said Vijayalakshmi gave a statement as found in Ex.P. 2. Ex.P.2 does not speak anything as to the attempt made by the accused who ran away from the place of occurrence. In the instant case, though she lived for three days till 10.8.2003, a requisition was also forwarded as per the evidence of the police officer and medical officer that the dying declaration was not recorded at all.But,the prosecution had no explanation to offer. It was the case of the prosecution that she sustained 90% injuries and hence the deceased could not be able to give a confession statement. Learned counsel would further add that there was a delay in despatching the First Information Report to the Court. The police Station and the Judicial Magistrate Court are situated in the Town of Tiruvallur. Though the case came to be registered at 2.30 hours. on 8.8.2003, First Information Report reached the Court at about 6.15 p.m. on the same day. But the constable who took the First Informatation Report was not examined and that the said delay remains unexplained. The delay in despatching the FIR is also against the case of the prosecution. The earliest document viz., extra judicial confesion should have been relied upon by the trial Court, since it was one given by the deceaed when she was conscious, that too, it was given to the Doctor PW4 who has been examined by the prosecution to that effect. Though the evidence of PW4 was available, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved its case. On the contrary, extra judicial confession coupled with the evidence of PW4 has disproved the prosecution case that it was the act of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and the accused is entitled for acquittal Hence, the accused has got to be acquitted.