Egmore advocate murder case full order of IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI Present : Mr. D. Lingeswaran, M.A., B.L., I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai Tuesday this the 7th day of November, 2023 S.C.No.424 of 2019 in Crime No.222 of 2015 (On the file of F-2, Egmore Police Station) CNR No. TNCH01-042349 – 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI
Present : Mr. D. Lingeswaran, M.A., B.L., I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai
Tuesday this the 7th day of November, 2023
S.C.No.424 of 2019 in
Crime No.222 of 2015
(On the file of F-2, Egmore Police Station)
CNR No. TNCH01-042349 – 2019
Statement as per Rule 106 of the Criminal Rule of Practice, 2019
1 Serial Number S.C.No.424 of 2019
2 Name of the Police Station and Crime
Number F-2, Egmore Police Station & Cr.No.222 of 2015
3 Name of the Accused 1. Michael (M/A55/2015)
S/o. Anthony,
No.244/B, Everyday Colony, Kondungaiyur, Chennai – 118.
(charge against A1 abated by order dated 9.12.2021)
2. Logeswari @ Eswari, (M/A28/2015)
D/o. Loganathan,
No.39/20, VPN Colony, Kannikapuram, Pulianthope, Chennai – 12.
3. A. Charles, (M/A31/2015)
S/o. Anthony,
No.2/19, Pragatheeswaran Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.
4. K. Rajesh, (M/A33/2015)
S/o. Kalaiselvam,
No.862, 26th Street, B.V. Colony, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.
4 Father’s Name
5 Occupation
6 Residence
7 Age

(charge against A4 abated by order dated 11.12.2020)
5. Nataraj, (M/A 46/2015)
S/o. Ramasamy,
No.49, S-2, 2nd Floor, 4th Cross Street,
M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai – 39.
6. C.P. Nareshkumar (M/A 39/2015)
S/o. Parthasarathy,
No.50, 4th Street,
Kaviyarasu Kannadasan Nagar, Kondungaiyur, Chennai – 118.
7. Muniyandi, (M/A 34/2015)
S/o. Palanisamy,
No.1022, 29th Street,
B.V. Colony,
M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai – 39.
8. Rajeshkanna @ Chinni
(M/A 30/2015)
S/o. Gnanasekar,
No.67, Venkateshwara Colony,
Binny Nagar,
Madhavaram Milk Colony Road, Chennai – 51.
9. Ashok @ Ashok Kumar
(M/A 32/2015)
S/o. Chandiran,
No.908-E, 27th Street, B.V. Colony, Vyasarpadi Chennai – 39.
10.Boobalan (M/A 29/2015)
S/o. Selvakumar,
No.249/1, B- Kalyanapuram,
Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.\

11.Karthik (M/A 23/2015)
S/o. Palani,
No.24/1, Kamaraj Street,
Maligaipoo Nagar,
Sembium, Chennai – 11.
12. Prasanna (M/A 28/2015)
S/o. Panchatcharam,
No.52, Somasundara Vinayagar Koil 1st
Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 11.
13. Santhanakrishnan, (M/A 32/2015)
S/o. Sekar,
No.1/2, Thangavel Street, Vetri Nagar, Chennai – 82.
14. Selva @ Selvarasu, (M/A 23/2015)
S/o. Jeyakumar,
No.862, 26th Street, B.V. Colony, Vyasarpadi Chennai – 39.
15. Prabha @ Prabhakaran,
(M/A 28/2015)
S/o. Viswanathan,
No.138,Pudhunagar 7th Street, M.K.B. Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.
16. Ranjith, (M/A 25/2015)
S/o. Ravindran,
No.59/1, 4th Thiruvalluvar Street, G.K.M. Colony, Chennai – 82.
17.Vinothkumar (M/A 23/2015)
S/o. Pandurangan,
No.1, Kumarasamy Street,
Peruambur, Chennai – 11.
8 Date of Occurrence 31.01.2015

9 Date of Final Report 05.02.2016
10 Date of Apprehension 31.01.2015 – A2 & A7
01.02.2015 – A3
A5 surrendered on 24.06.2015
02.02.2015 – A6
08.02.2015 – A8 & A9
01.04.2015 – A10
A11, A15 & A17 surrendered on
18.06.2015
A12, A13, A14 & A16 surrendered on 16.07.2015
11 Date of Release on bail 23.04.2015 – A2, A3
24.06.2015 – A5
17.04.2015 – A6
21.04.2015 – A7
22.07.2015 – A8
22.07.2015 – A9
21.05.2015 – A10
23.06.2015 – A11, A15 & A17
16.07.2015 – A12, A13, A14 & A16
12 Date of Commitment Committed by the learned XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore ,Chennai vide ordered dated 15.10.2019 in P.R.C.No.20/2016.
13 Date of Commencement of Trial (Date of framing of charge) 01.03.2021
14 Closure of Trial 25.10.2023
15 Sentence of Order A5 to A17 are acquitted of the charges U/Ss. 120B r/w. 302 of IPC, 147, 302 r/w. 120B r/w. 149 of IPC and 506(ii) r/w. 149 of IPC. under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
(a). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 147 of I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months.
(b). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years.
(c). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three
Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.

(d). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
(e). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three years.
(f). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Five Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.

(g) The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by the accused persons is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by and on behalf of the A2 and A3 shall stand cancelled. The bail bonds executed by and on behalf of the A5 to A17 shall stand cancelled except the bonds executed under section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
Order relating to case
properties:-
The Material Objects which were marked as P.M.O.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after the lapse of time allowed for appeal or disposal of appeal if any.
16 Service of copy of judgement or finding on accused Copy of the Judgment uploaded in the website.
17 Explanation of delay Delay by Covid 19 lock down
18 Counsel for Prosecution Mr. A. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor
19 Counsel for Accused A2 – M/s.P.R. Dinesh Kumar, R. Thirukothainayaki, V. Manimaran, M. Vigneswaran & M. Senthilkumar
A3 – M/s. S.K. Chandrakumar, S.G. Alli Chandrakumar & K. Tamilarasan
A5 – M/s. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, R.
Vijayan & E. Brinda
A7 – S.Samuel Rajapandian
A6, A13 & 14 – M/s. C.M. Suresh Arokianathan, S.V.D. Rajendra Prasad,
E. Kotteeswaran & J. Vivekanandan
A8 & A9 – M/s. S. Mohanavadivelan S.V. Jayakumar & M. Soundarya
A10, A15 & A16 – K. Kannan, S. Vijayaraghavan & R. Vijayan
A11 & 12 – M/s. K.M. Vijayan
Associates
A17 – K. Kannan, N. Ranjith Vijayalayan, R. Ravichandran, J.
Prakash & S. Suganya
JUDGMENT
“In the hollowed halls of Justice, Themis reigns, free from any Thirst for human sacrifice”
1. The case:-
1 (i) January 30, 2015 was the election day for Egmore Advocates Association.
Michael (A1) and Chandan Babu were the main contestants for the post of President.
Michal became concerned about the election results and conspired with his supporters
(A2 to A17) on January 28, 2015 at Egmore Court campus in the evening around 17.30 hours. They decided to kill anyone else who might be elected as president. As scheduled election was held on January 30, 2015. The counting of votes took place in the evening, and the results were announced in the early morning of January 31, 2015 around 01.20 a.m. Chandan Babu was declared the elected president. The ecstatic supporters of Chandan Babu started celebration. Few carried Chandan Babu on their shoulders and others erupted in joy.
1 (ii) Michael and his supporters were enraged on seeing the celebrations. A1 to A17 pelted stones on the supporters of Chandan Babu. They ran helter-skelter. One Stalin, Junior Advocate of Chandan Babu got trapped. A1 to A17 surrounded him.
Michael (A1) and Logeswari @ Eswari (A2) instigated others to kill Stalin. Natarajan
(A5), Nareshkumar (A6) and Muniyandi (A7) caught hold of Stalin. Charles (A3) cut Stalin with a knife on the back of his head. Rajesh (A4) cut Stalin on his face. A1 kicked him. All the other accused using cudgels and stones attacked Stalin indiscriminately. The incident had happened near the main gate of the Court campus. All the accused then threatened to kill other supporters and then fled away. Stalin succumbed to his injuries. He was declared brought dead at the Hospital.
1(iii) Kuttiappan, another Junior of Chandan Babu lodged a complaint with the
Inspector of Police, F-2 Police Station, Egmore on 31.01.2015 at 03.00 a.m. The
Inspector of Police had taken up the case for investigation.
2. The investigation:-
2(i) Mr.R.Mathiarasu, Inspector of Police (PW22) had received the complaint
(Ex.P5) from Kuttiappan (PW7) at 03.00 a.m. on 31.01.2015 and registered a case in Cr.No.222/2015, U/Ss.147, 148 and 302 of IPC. The investigating officer had then visited the place of occurrence at 04.45 a.m. and prepared an Observation Memo (Ex.P23) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P24) in the presence of witnesses Moorthy (PW11) and Sakthivel (PW4). He had further collected a blood stained big stone (P.M.O.3) and blood stained Thar road pieces and ordinary pieces for sample in presence of same witnesses under cover of Mahazar.
2(ii) On 31.01.2015 from 07.00 to 09.00 a.m. the investigating officer had conducted inquest (Ex.P26) on the body of the deceased Stalin at the mortuary of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital in the presence of Panchayatars. The body was thereafter sent for post mortem examination with due requisition. Then the witnesses Kuttiappan, Williams, Mary Elisa, Karmen, Chandan Babu, Madhavan,
Saravankumar, Ranjithkumar, Syed Ali, Nazar, Seenivasan, Kondaiyah, Moorthy and Sakthivel were examined and their statements were recorded.
2(iii) The investigating officer (PW22) when arrested A2 Logeswari @ Eswari with the help of a women Inspector of Police Azhagu Jothi (PW18). A2 had voluntarily given a confession statement and the same was recorded in presence of witnesses Moorthy and Murugan. The statements of witnesses Moorthy, Murugan, Azhagu Jothi, Govindasami and Dr.Valli Nayagam were then recorded by the investigating officer. On the same day I.e 31.01.2015 at about 02.00 p.m. A7 Muniyandi was arrested and his confession statement was also recorded in the presence of witnesses Moorthy and Murugan. On 01.02.2015 at about 10.00 a.m. A3 Charles, A4 Rajesh were all arrested and they had given a voluntary confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses Suresh and Pandeeswaran. They accused were then sent for Judicial Custody. A6 Naresh Kumar was arrested at Purasaiwakkam on 02.02.2015 and his confession statement was recorded in the presence witnesses Irudhayaraj and Karunanidhi.
2(iv) On 07.02.2015 the investigating officer had further examined the first informant Kuttiappan and recorded his further statement. Kuttiappan had further disclosed the involvement of other accused persons and named them. Armed with the statements of the witnesses including Kuttiappan, the investigating officer had arrested Rajesh Kanna (A8) and Ashok (A9) on 08.02.2015 at Egmore near Albert Theatre. Boobalan (A10) was then arrested. On 09.04.2015 Michael (A1) had surrendered before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and was remanded to Judicial Custody. On 23.04.2015 as per the orders of the learned Magistrate a statement of A1 was recorded by the investigating officer. The other accused persons were enlarged on Anticipatory Bail.
2(v) The Investigating Officer had sent all the case properties for Forensic Analysis and received reports. After completion of investigation PW22 had filed a final report against A1 to A17 as narrated supra.
3. The committal:-
3(i). Upon receipt of the final report the Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has taken the same on file in PRC No.20/2016. After appearance of the accused the due process and procedures under Section 207 of Cr.P.C had been complied with by the learned Magistrate. After a careful perusal and consideration of statements of witnesses and material records, the learned Magistrate had come to a conclusion that the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, as such he had committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C to the Principal Judge, Chennai by his order dated 15.10.2019. The entire case records were sent to the Principal Judge and the accused persons were directed to appeared before the Principal Judge, Chennai.
3(ii). Accordingly, the accused persons appeared before the Hon’ble Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 29.11.2019, the case was numbered as
S.C.No.424/2019 and the same was made over to this court (I Additional Sessions Judge) for disposal in accordance with law. The accused appeared before this court on
13.12.2019 and the proceedings have taken place.
3(iii) It was then reported that A4 had died on 04.10.2020. The Police had filed a report along with death certificate, thus the charge against A4 stood abated as per the order dated 11.12.2020. It was thereafter reported that Michael (A1) had died on
13.12.2020 and charge against him was abated by an order dated 09.02.2021.
4.The charges:-
On 01.03.2021 this court had considered the statements of witnesses, documents and the materials on record and had come to a conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for framing charges against the accused persons. Accordingly the court framed charges under Sections 120 B r/w. 302, 302 r/w. 149 and 506(ii) r/w. 149 of IPC against A2, A3, A5 to A17. The Court framed charges U/Ss. 147 of IPC against A5 to A17 and Sec. 148 of IPC against A2 and A3. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Tamil and having understood their respective charges, they pleaded not guilty to the charges, therefore trial was ordered and conducted.
5. The Trial:-
In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and Exhibited 32 documents. Seven prosecution material objects were marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, procedure under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C has been duly complied with and the responses of the accused persons were recorded.
The defence examined one witness, however they did not produce any document.
Both sides were heard.
6. Point for consideration:-
Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts?
7. Arguments of the Prosecution :-
7(i) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that it is a daring murder in the Egmore Court campus committed in the presence of Police Officers. The prosecution has proved the unlawful assembly of A1 to A17 in the place of occurrence on 31.01.2015 at 01.30 a.m., pelting of stones by them on the supporters of Chandan Babu (PW9) and the deadly attack on Stalin by A1 to A17 through the evidence of PW7, PW9, PW10, PW15, PW16, PW19, PW26 and other witnesses.
The injuries sustained by the deceased Stalin were explained in detail by PW21
Dr.Vallinayagam. It was further argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the enmity of the accused party towards the complainant party is well established by the above prosecution witnesses and the overt acts of all the accused persons and their membership in the unlawful assembly were all duly proved by the prosecution witnesses.
7(ii) Noting the hostility of certain witnesses including the Police officials, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the fear of consequences have made them turn turtle and pointed out that their hostility did not affect the case of prosecution. It was argued that through the cogent, reliable and truthful witnesses the prosecution has proved the respective charges against all the accused and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for conviction of all the accused who faced trial.
8. Arguments of the defence :-
8 (i) Detailed written arguments were filed on behalf of all the accused. Counsel for each of the accused also advanced oral arguments in detail on several days. The learned counsels relied upon more than 25 judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court to drive home their points regarding reliability of various types of witnesses, the delay in registration and sending of the First Information Report and judgments regarding invocation of section 149 of IPC. The learned counsels for the accused particularly relied upon Eknath Ganpat Aher and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others (2010 (6) SCC 519) and argued that only vague and omnibus statements were made against the accused persons as such their evidence cannot be relied upon for resting conviction. It was further argued that unless there is specific evidence attributing specific role to accused persons judgment of conviction cannot be passed. It was also argued definite role of each accused and specific overt acts have to be mentioned by the witnesses.
8 (ii) Based on the same judgment it was also argued that in the case of group of rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault. In such situations, the Courts are called upon to be very cautious and sift the evidence with care.
8 (iii) Judgments relating to appreciation of various types of witnesses and particularly that of hostile and Police witnesses were also circulated. The sum and substance of all the cited judgments are relating to appreciation of evidence and the impact of delay in sending the FIR and other related document to Court. In the light of the cited judgments the counsels for accused argued that there is inordinate delay in sending the FIR and the statement of witnesses to Court and the same has caused prejudice to the accused persons and false implications have taken place. Thus all the accused prayed for acquittal from all the charges.
8(iv) It was further argued that the witnesses to prove the alleged conspiracy have turned hostile and there is nothing on record to prove the charge U/S.120 B of IPC against the all the accused. It was also argued that the Police have not investigated the case in proper manner and acted as per the diktats of PW9 Chandan
Babu. PW7 had admitted that he wrote the complaint as instructed by his senior, namely PW9 as such it has no value. The witnesses who have deposed in favour of the prosecution are only few Police Officers and the juniors of PW9 as such they are all interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied on for any purpose. It was argued that the prosecution as not proved the charges against any of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Thus the defence prayed for acquittal of all the accused from all the charges.
9. Analysis of evidence:-
9(i) This court carefully considered the entire evidence on record in the light of rival submissions and the cited case laws. In order to answer the point for consideration we shall first consider and evaluate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Among the 27 witnesses listed below, let’s identify those who testified in favour of the prosecution.
Name Witness No. Nature of Evidence Remarks
Mr. Karmen PW1 Eye Witness Hostile
Mr. Mohan PW2 Eye Witness Hostile
Mr. Dinesh PW3 Witness for conspiracy Hostile
Mr. Sakthivel PW4 Mahazar Witness Hostile
Mr.Syed Ali PW5 Eye witness Hostile
Mr. Nazar PW6 Eye witness Hostile
Mr.Kuttiappan PW7 First Informant/Defacto
Complainant/Eye Witness Admitted only the complaint but turned hostile
Mrs.Subbulakshmi, Grade I Constable PW8 Eye Witness Implicated A1 Michael, A2
Logeswari and without naming

other accused she says all of them were involved.
Mr. Chandan Babu PW9 Eye Witness Implicated
A1 to A6 but did not attribute overt act to any one.
Mr.Madhavan PW10 Eye Witness Implicated A1 to
A6 attributed overt acts to A3 and A4.
Mr.Moorthy PW11 Mahazar Witness Hostile
Mr. Mathi Raja PW12 Witness for Conspiracy Hostile
Mr. Pandeeswaran PW13 Witness for Confession of A3 and A4 Hostile
Mr.Velmurugan PW14 Arrest and Confession of
A8 Hostile
Mr. Saravanakumar PW15 Eye Witness Implicated A1 to
A4
Mr.Williams PW16 Eye Witness Presence is doubtful
Mrs. Mary Elisa PW17 Wife of the deceased Speaks about seeing her
husband’s body at hospital
Mrs. Azhagujothi, PW18 Assisted the Investigating Officer Speaks about arrest of A2 and
A7
Mr. Thiagarajan PW19 Eye Witness Implicates A2
Mr.Govindasamy, PW20 Head Constable on post moterm duty Identified the body for post moterm
and received the
dress materials of
the deceased after autopsy
Dr. Vallinayagam PW21 Doctor who conducted autopsy Listed out the injuries and opined that death
was due to head injury
Mr. Mathiyarasu, Inspector of Police PW22 Investigating Officer Speaks about the process of investigation
After examination of Investigating Officer and examination of accused U/S. 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The Court suo motu summoned PW23 to PW27 by its order dated
17.03.2023.
Mr.Srinivasan PW23 Eye witness Hostile
Mr. Gajendran PW24 Election Officer – Eye Witness Hostile
Mr. Marimuthu,
Inspector of Police PW25 Incharge of Court security/Eye witness Hostile
Mr.Prabhakaran, PW26 Eye Witness Identified A2, named and
implicated A1, A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7.
Mr. Ranjithkumar PW27 Eye Witness Hostile
The witnesses PW7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 26 alone spoke about the riot and actual attack on Stalin.
10. Reliability of the evidence of PW7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 26:-
10(i) PW7 Kuttiappan is the first infromant and an eye witness to the riot and deadly attack on Stalin. He is a Junior Advocate of Mr.Chandan Babu. He admitted Ex.P5 complaint but said that he wrote the same as dictated by his senior Mr.Chandan Babu. He said as follows :- கலவரம் நடந்தபபபோது நபோன் சம்பவ இடத்தில் தபோன் இருந்பதன். பமேற்படி கலவரத்தத நபோன் பபோர்க்கவில்தல.
It appears that he was blinded either by fear or a sense of brotherhood. He was declared hostile. He denied the suggestions of the Additional Public Prosecutor regarding the occurrence. His evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.
10(ii) PW16 Williams is the son of the deceased Stalin. He was a resident of
Pondichery. PW1 Karmen is the father of the deceased. As per the case of prosecution PW1 had taken PW16 to Egmore Court Campus on the Election day at about 08.30 p.m. in the evening and they witnessed the occurrence. However, PW1 Karmen when examined before this Court turned completely hostile to the case of prosecution and said that against his conscience he had falsely given a statement to the Investigating Officer, as if he had directly seen the occurrence.
10(iii) PW1 was examined on 08.04.2021. Exactly after 5 months PW16 Williams was examined before this Court. Since PW1 had resiled from his statement before Police and denied seeing the occurrence, PW16 carefully said that PW1 had left him at the Egmore Court Campus and had gone to Pondichery. PW16 then went on to state as if he had witnessed the entire occurrence, including the killing of his father. He made a sweeping statement that all the accused showed their anger on his father Stalin. He said he saw the entire episode from a distance of about 150 ft. from the place of occurrence. He said he did not board the ambulance to accompany his father to hospital. He said after 10 minutes, he went to the hospital along with PW9 and other two advocates. He went on to state that thereafter he went to Pondichery and brought his mother Mary Elisa (PW17) to the Government Hospital, Chennai in the morning. A combined reading of the evidence of PW1, 16 and PW17 makes the presence of PW16 in the place of occurrence doubtful. In Ex.D.1 booklet supplied to
A8 and A9 when they were detained under the Goondas Act, statements of PW1 and PW16 were annexed in Ex.D1. It is proved through the Investigating Officer (PW22) that those two witnesses had not told him that they saw the occurrence. PW32 had admitted that they were shown as a hear say witness only. As per the evidence of
PW22, PW16 had earlier told him that at the time of occurrence he was in Pondicherry along with his mother and others.
It is also strange for him to say that at 03.30 a.m. he went to Pondicherry and came back with his mother, sister and grand father. The evidence of PW16 becomes unreliable on the face of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW22) and the contradictory statements of PW16 in Ex.D1.
10(iv) PW8 Subbulakshmi, a Constable in the Armed Reserve Police Force, GCompany 42nd platoon, which was entrusted with the security of the Egmore Court Campus. At the time of occurrence as per her evidence she was on duty at the main
entrance gate of the Egmore Court Campus along with Constables Thiyagarajan(PW19) and Prabakaran (PW26). She spoke about the victory celebrations of Chandan Babu Team. Then PW8 said Michael (A1) and Logeswari (A2) instigated other accused persons to throw stones. She identified Logeswari (A2) specifically and all other accused generally without naming them. As per her evidence both the teams indulged in stone pelting. She further spoke about the specific directions given by A1 and A2 to their supporters to attack Stalin. PW8 went on to narrate the attack on Stalin by few accused. However she did not name any body except A1 and A2.
During cross examination she said that she did not remember the names of other accused persons and their physical features. Admittedly no test identification parade was conducted. Before further analysis of the evidence of PW8, let us scrutinize the evidence of her fellow guards who were on duty with her at the gate. PW19 and PW26 were the co-guards on duty. Both of them said they were on duty at the main gate at the time of occurrence. PW19 specifically named the other guards who were on duty.
10(v) PW19 vouched for the presence of PW8 and PW26. PW19 also spoke about the Election and the declaration of results at 01.30 a.m. on 31.01.2015. He further spoke about the riot and pelting of stones by the supporters of Michael (A1). PW19 went on to state that the supporters of Michael (A1) encircled Stalin, and attacked him with wooden logs. PW19 specifically identified Logeswari (A2) and said he could not remember other accused persons. PW19 had admitted during cross examination that it was Inspector Marimuthu (PW25) who told him the name of
Logeswari (A2). The evidence is as follows.”கபோவல் ஆய்வபோளர் மேபோரிமுத்து சசபோல்ல 2வது எதிரியின் சபயதர சதரிந்து சகபோண்படன். மேறுநபோள் கபோதல நபோன் சம்பவம் பற்றி ஒரு சபண்மேணி அடித்தபோர் என்று சசபோன்னபபபோது அவர் சபயர் பலபோபகஸ்வரி என்று ஆய்வபோளர் என்னிடம் சசபோன்னபோர்…….ஆய்வபோளர் மேபோரிமுத்துதபோன் அன்தறைய தினம் உயரதிகபோரியபோக பணியபோற்றினபோர்”. PW25
Marimuthu was Inspector of “G-Company” which was in charge of the security of
Egmore Court Campus. He turned Hostile. However he admitted the suggestion of Additional Public Prosecutor during cross examination in para 6 that he gave a statement to Police that fearing for life he along with others on security duty scattered and ran away. It shows that he had witnessed the occurrence but he lacked the courage either to prevent the riot or to speak about it. The take away from his evidence is that the evidence of PW19 that Inspector Marimuthu told him the name of 2nd accused to PW19, is correct because he had also seen the occurrence.
10(vi) PW26 spoke about the occurrence. He said Michael (A1) and Logeswari
(A2) threw stones on the supporters of Chandan Babu and the supporters ran away.
He further deposed that around 30 advocates surrounded Stalin and Charles (A3) and Rajesh (A4) attacked Stalin with a sword like weapon and Stalin sustained injury and escaped from the campus and ran to the opposite side of the road. At that time
Nareshkumar (A6) and Muniyandi (A7) caught hold of Stalin and at that time Charles (A8) cut him on the back side of the head. When Stalin fell down, A1 Michael kicked him on the neck and abused.
10(vii) A cumulative reading and a careful scrutiny of the evidence the guards (PW8, 19 and 26) at the entrance gate of entrance Court campus proves the membership of A1 to A4, A6 and A7 in the unlawful assembly which indulged in the riot which had taken place at the Egmore Court Campus around 01.30 a.m. on
31.01.2015. All the above three witnesses unerringly identified and pointed their accusing fingers towards A2 Logeswari and the deceased accused A1 Michael. The identification of A2 was not because of the fact that she was the only female accused in the line up, but she was the only female accused found in the scene of crime. All the above witnesses distinctly remembered the involvement of A2 Logeswari in the occurrence as she was commanding the supporters of the deceased accused Michael and was leading the attack. The name of A2 might have been told to the witnesses later by other witnesses but their identification of A2 in the dock was not actuated by any other external force. A detailed, grilling cross examination of PW8, PW19 and PW26 did not bring out any fact to show that the implication of A2 by them was motivated. The presence of PW8, 19 and 26 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted for the non production of the duty roaster. If they were not on duty, they would have gladly excused themselves from testifying in a high profile case and avoided inviting the wrath of advocates of Egmore Advocates Association.
10(viii) Had the Investigating Officer arranged for a Test Identification Parade at the prison and made these witnesses to identify the suspects, they could have even identified all the accused persons. Their memory was tested after more than five years and it was the reason for them not identifying all the accused except whose roles/overt acts were specific, bigger and serious. Except PW26, the other two guards (PW8 and PW19) did not specifically name A3 Charles, A4 Rajesh, A6 Nareshkumar and A7 Muniyandi. However, all of them unequivocally identified A2 Logeswari and spoke about the deceased accused A1 Michael. PW26 though named A3, A4, A6 and A7 did not identify them in the dock and said he could not identify. When the suspects were not previously known to the witnesses it is always advisable that their memory should have been tested at the earliest in a manner known to law. PW22 would not have resorted to Test Identification Parade as the other eye witnesses who were advocates practicing /practiced law along side the accused persons and knew them very well. He would not have foreseen, even the complainant/first informant and other advocates turning hostile. In fine, from a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the guards i.e. PW8, 19 and 26 the involvement/Participation and overt act of A2 and the deceased accused A1 alone is completely believable. The evidence of the above witnesses particularly of PW26 with regard to the complicity of A3, A4, A6 and A7 needs further substantive evidence.
10(ix) Let us now see as to whether any such evidence is available to prove the complicity of A3, A4, A6, A7 and other accused persons to the crime. It takes us to the evidence of PW9, 10 and 15.
10(x) PW9 Chandan Babu, the victor of the election for the post of president of the Egmore Advocates Association was the central axis of the case. He spoke about the declaration of results for the post of president and his victory. He said that when his supporters joyfully carried him on their shoulders and proceeded towards the entrance gate, A1 Michael, A2 Logeswari, A3 Charles, A4 Rajesh, A5 Nataraj, A6
Nareshkumar and several others totaling 30 in number pelted stones on them. It was then they scattered around and ran helter-skelter. PW9 further said that Stalin was caught alone by the mob. PW9 went on the state that Michael (A1) ordered his supporters to hack and kill Stalin as he was a key to the success of his election. A2 Logeswari shouted that no one who defeated her leader should be spared and commanded other accused persons to hack and kill Stalin. As per the deposition of PW9, the accused Rajesh (A4) gave a strong below on the face of Stalin with a stone in his hand. Other accused had restrained Stalin from escaping. The accused Charles (A3) had then hacked Stalin with a knife. Thereafter, Stalin had got away from the clutches of the mob and ran outside the Court Campus crossed the road and collapsed on the opposite side. The mob again surrounded Stalin and A1 Michael had stamped him on his neck with his leg and other accused persons also kicked and stoned Stalin. Chandan Babu further said when the Police people rushed near all the accused persons fled the scene. The Police have taken in their vehicle to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital. PW9 did not identify and speak about other accused except A1 to A6. He was cross examined at length. During cross examination he had admitted that he could not specifically name the persons who threw stones at them (cross examination dated 13.05.2021 page 1). On the same day of cross examination at page No.3 he had further admitted that when he ran away from the scene he did not know what had happened to Stalin. He also admitted that he came to knew about the attack on Stalin through others only after the incident. During cross examination it was admitted by him that A5 Nataraj was removed from the voter list in the election scheduled to be held in the subsequent year after the incident. It was also admitted that a civil suit regarding the same was filed subsequently, challenging in the removal, in which PW9 was also shown as a defendant. A5 was a former president of the Egmore Advocates Associations as such election rivalry was suggested as a reason for false implication of A5 in the case. From the evidence of PW9 the presence of A1 to A6 in the unlawful assembly which indulged in riot could be seen.
It was only after the mob which included A1 to A6 started throwing stones on them PW9 and others scattered an ran away. Therefore, the presence of A1 to A6 in the mob which threw stones was duly noted before he left the scene. The evidence of PW9 regarding what had happened to Stalin thereafter is hear say in nature, therefore the specific overt acts attributed to A3 and A4 by PW9 can at the most be stretched as an evidence of a res gestae witness with regard to the said aspect. Thus with regard to the specific overt act of A3 and A4 further corroboration is required.
10(xi) PW10, Madhavan was one of Junior advocates of PW9 Chandan Babu. He spoke about the stone pelting by the supporters of A1 Michael. He specifically mentioned the overt acts of A1 Michael and A2 Logeswari. As per his evidence A1 and A2 commanded their supporters to hack and kill Stalin. Obeying the command, Charles (A3) had hacked Stalin from back side, however Stalin had escaped and that time Rajesh (A4) gave a blow with a stone in his hand, on the face of Stalin. The injured Stalin escaped from that spot and ran across the road and collapsed on the opposite side. As per the evidence of PW10, around 30 known persons including A1 to A6 kicked Stalin with legs and abused him. It is in his evidence that when Police rushed to rescue Stalin, the accused persons fled the scene. Collapsed Stalin was taken away to hospital by Police in Police vehicle. PW9 had followed in his vehicle to the hospital. PW10 was also cross examined in detail. During cross examination
PW10 had admitted that he did not say to Police in his former statement that when Stalin collapsed the accused A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 kicked Stalin with their legs. Having stated “சபோர்லஸ் என்பவர் தகயில் தவத்திருந்த கத்திதய ஸ்டபோலதன பின்பநபோக்கி சவட்டச் சசன்றைபபபோது, ஸ்டபோலன் தப்பிவிட்டபோர்” it was suggested to
PW10 that A3 Charles did not cause any injury to Stalin which he admitted. From the evidence of PW10 it is proved by the prosecution that A1 Michael, A2 Logeswari,
A3 Charles and A4 Rajesh committed specific overt acts. The overt acts attributed to A5 and A6 by PW10 had become doubtful by his contradictory statements. A combined reading and consideration of the evidence of PW9, 10 and 26 makes the specific overt acts of A5, A6 and A7 doubtful. False implication of A5, A6 and A7 attributing specific overt acts to them is possible. Electoral rivalry of PW9 with A5 and A6 may be a reason for such a false implication of these accused in the crime.
10(xii) PW15, K.P.S. Saravanakumar, is a practicing advocate. He was also eagerly waiting in the Egmore Court campus for the election results. He said that at the time of victory celebrations Michael(A1) and his supporters hurled stones on the celebrating team of Chandan Babu. He said he was watching the riot just opposite to the place of occurrence. He further said that the supporters of Michael started attacking Stalin. He identified the accused Logeswari (A2), Charles (A3) in the dock and spoke about the involvement of the deceased accused Rajesh (A4) and 20 other accused persons in the occurrence. He said that thereafter, he ran to the steps of the Chief Metropolitan Court and stood there. The duration of the incident was about 10 to 20 seconds. After 10 minutes of the incident he came out of the Court campus and saw the deceased Stalin lying on the opposite side of the road. As per his evidence he along with Kuttiappan (PW7) and Police took the injured Stalin in a TATA SUMO vehicle of the Police to Government Hospital at Chennai Central. The doctors declared that Stalin was brought dead. PW15 was grilled and cross examined in detail. He admitted that the deceased and some of the witnesses including PW7, PW9 and PW10 were his friends. A practicing advocate will normally be a friend of other practicing advocates in the same Court complex. It cannot be a reason for discarding and discounting his evidence. The presence of PW15 in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence could not be doubted and there was nothing on record to discredit his evidence against A1 Michael, A2 Logeswari, A3 Charles and A4 Rajesh. His evidence was cogent, clear, unambiguous and thus inspires confidence in this Court. There is absolutely no evidence or reason on record to suggest enmity between PW15 and the accused persons (A1, A2, A3 and A4). There is absolutely no material contradiction in his entire evidence. The evidence of PW15 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW10, PW8, PW9, PW19 and PW26.
10(xiii) Needless to state that the evidence of hostile witnesses will not be completely effaced from records and reliance on any part of the statement of such a witness by both parties his permissible. The dictum in Satpaul Vs Delhi
Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727 is followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the
High Courts till this date. Though PW26 was declared hostile his implication of A2
Logeswari supports the case of prosecution as against A2. Though he had implicated A3 and deceased A4 with overt acts, he did not identify A3 in the dock. Fear of the future can diminish one’s courage. As already stated supra, PW10 and PW15 have already implicated A3 clearly, thus the evidence of PW26 if not wholly reliable, at least lends credence to the substantive evidence of PW10 and PW15.
10(xiv) A careful scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of PW8, 9, 10, 15, 19 and 26 definitely proves as discussed above, the unlawful assembly of A1 Michael, A2 Logeswari, A3 Charles and A4 Rajesh. Their specific overt acts were also proved beyond reasonable doubts by the above witnesses. DW1
Mrs.Ramya Rajesh wife of deceased Accused A4 tried to set up and alibi for A2 as if she was there in the house at Vyasarpadi at the time of occurrence. However, when Police allegedly arrived at the house of A4, it was about to 02.45 a.m. as per the evidence of DW1 which is at least 90 minutes after the occurrence. Vysarpadi is just about 7 km, reachable in 20 to 30 minutes from Egmore Court. The plea of A2 that she was taken by Police for securing A4 is also discredited in view of the evidence of
PW18 who assisted the Investigating Officer in arresting A2. It is to be noted that no such suggestion was put to PW18 when she had specifically stated that she was arrested in the afternoon of 31.01.2015. The evidence of DW1 who spoke contrary to the same is rejected as that of evidence of an interested witness. The conclusion is, A2 is a definite part and member of the unlawful assembly. As far as the other accused persons namely A5, A6 and A7, though they were named specifically by certain witnesses for the reasons stated supra benefit of doubt is extended to them. A8 to A17 were not at all specifically named are identified or associated with any kind of overt act by any of the prosecution witnesses. There was no evidence against them except a sweeping statement by a few witnesses. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is given to them.
10(xv) It is not the assembly of just four persons but an unlawful assembly of at least 30 persons. But there was involvement of other known and unknown persons.
It is pertinent to note and recall here that in Ram Bilas Vs State of Bihar (1964 Crl.L.J.673(SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if it is proved by the prosecution that there were five or more people involved in the crime, but only less than five could be convicted, they would still be held as part of an unlawful assembly.
10(xvi) It is also to be noted that if five or more persons in prosecution of their common object with a common intention, commit any offence or act, they can be jointly held liable invoking section 34 as well as section 149 of IPC. In such a scenario both section 34 and 149 of IPC would be applicable. Section 34 of IPC is only rule of evidence. It need not be stated specifically in the charge against accused.
Needless to state that if the evidence on record discloses the common intention of the accused persons it can be invoked without being specifically stated in the charge. In Chittarmal, Moti Vs State of Rajastan 2003 INSC 12 had approved invoking section 34 and 149 of IPC in appropriate cases depending on the facts and circumstances. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that A2 and A3 are member of the unlawful assembly with the deceased accused persons Michael and Rajesh (A1 and A4) and a mob of 30 known and unknown offenders. A2 had stones in her hand whereas A3 had a knife in his hand. Thus they are to be held guilty under section 147 and 148 of IPC respectively. It is settled position of law that non recovery of the weapon used in the commission of crime is not fatal in all cases. When the witnesses have spoken specifically that A3 used the knife in the commission of crime non recovery on the same has no significance. Thus A2 is held guilty U/S. 147 of IPC and A3 is held guilty U/S. 148 of IPC.
10(xvii) The Constitution bench of the Apex Court in Masalti Vs State of U.P. (1964 (8) SCR 133) has held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role in convicting him with the aid of Sec.149 of IPC. What is to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to be a member of an unlawful assembly. In the case in hand A2 and A3 have not only intentionally joined the unlawful assembly but also continued to be in it and committed overt acts as narrated above. A2 had commanded the other accused to hack and kill Stalin and A3 wielded a knife which ultimately resulted in the death of Stalin. Thus having taken active part in the unlawful assembly A2 and A3 have to be have held liable for whatever offences subsequently committed .
11.Whether the act of killing of the deceased Stalin would amount to murder or not?
11(i) Advocates are expected to come to Court with sharp minds, not with sharp knives. If an advocate comes with a knife to Court it can be presumed that he had other designs. When the evidence on record proves that A3 used a knife to attack Stalin, it shows that he is predetermined and come prepared for the event. The autopsy reveals a bone deep cut injury on the parietal region of the head and the witnesses prove that the knife was used by A3. The witnesses may not have seen each of blows landing on the aimed area but the usage of knife by A3 was clearly spoken to by the witnesses and there was a corresponding injury in the autopsy report in Ex.P. 27 and it was the fatal injury. Thus the intention of A3 to cause death is very clear. The evidence on record shows that A2 had instigated the supporters of Michael to hack and kill Stalin. In furtherance of the common intention she shared with A3 and the deceased accused persons and the other unknown offenders she had also acted, threw stones, attacked Stalin and encircled him so as to facilitate the killing. Her common intention with A3 and the common object of the unlawful assembly is writ large. The culpable homicide committed by the unlawful assembly which included A2 and A3 does not fall under any of the five exceptions provided under section 300 of IPC. Therefore, the culpable homicide committed by the members of unlawful assembly including A2 and A3 amounts to murder punishable under section 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 and 149 of IPC. Considering the shared common intention and common object of A2 and A3 they are held guilty under section 302 r/w. 34 and r/w. 149 of IPC.
12. Conspiracy not proved :-
12(i) The prosecution’s claim is that on 28.01.2015 at 17.30 hours at Egmore Court Campus A1 to A7 entered in to a Criminal conspiracy to kill anyone else who might be elected as president. The prosecution projected Dhinesh (PW3) and mathiraja(PW12) a witnesses to prove conspiracy. Both the witnesses turned hostile. They did not say anything about the alleged meeting at the Egmore Court Campus on
28.01.2015 among A1 to A17.
12(ii) Conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy. It was the reason the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Praveen @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana (Crl.A.No.5438 of 2020 Judgment dated 07.12.2021) held that conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances. For a criminal conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between conspirators to do an illegal act. The agreement may not be in writing or expressed verbally ; it can be inferred from the conduct of parties. There must be some ‘overt act’ in furtherance of conspiracy. In the case on hand the prosecution did not prove that there was meeting of minds prior to the commission of offence among the accused persons and there was no further act in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. The alleged conspiracy was to kill anybody else who might be elected as president. Apparently if the conspiracy is true it is kill Chandan Babu and not Stalin. The object of the unlawful assembly and their common intention was to kill Stalin which is diagonally opposite to the alleged theory of conspiracy. Thus none of the accused persons could be held guilty U/S. 120B r/w. 302 of IPC.
13. Criminal intimidation U/S.506(ii) of IPC:-
The evidence of PW8 and PW10 specifically show that the accused persons also held out threats to cause death or grievous hurt to anybody who meddled with Michael. The threat was not empty but had proved to be fatal. Thus the members of the unlawful assembly namely A2 and A3 are held guilty U/S. 506(ii) r/w. 149 r/w. 34 of IPC.
14. The delay in sending FIR:-
It was argued on behalf of the defence that the FIR, Complaint and statements of witnesses were sent to Court belatedly to Court and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. This Court carefully considered Ex.P5 Complaint which is admittedly given by PW7 Kuttiappan on 31.01.2015 at 03.00 a.m. in the early morning. Based on which the FIR in Ex.P15 was registered. The Complaint and FIR were received by the learned Magistrate on 31.01.2015 at 05.45 a.m. in the morning. Within two hours forty five minutes the complaint in Ex.P5 and FIR in Ex.P15 have reached the learned Magistrate. This Court do not see any inordinate delay in the receipt of the above documents by the learned Magistrate. It is general knowledge that after dispatch through the messenger, he has to go to the house of the Magistrate and wake him up from sleep and handover the FIR and Complaint. Therefore, it would have consumed some time. Therefore 2 hours 45 minutes taken for the documents to reach the learned Magistrate does not in anyway prejudice the accused persons, as the names of A1 to A6 were mentioned in it already.
15. There was no delay in recording the statements of witnesses ; the booklet in Ex.D1 proves it !
The learned counsel for the accused when cross examining the investigating officer PW22, pointing out the initial of the Magistrate with date, in statements annexed to the final report attempted to show that the statements were belatedly sent to the learned Magistrate only at the time of filing of final report. PW22 when suggested so, though admitted the entries firmly said that they sent the statements to Court as and when recorded. He further said there was no delay in recording the statements of witnesses. Taking advantage of the fact that the Magistrate had initialed all the pages of the final report including the statements annexed and dated it as 5/2/16 the learned counsels argued that it was belatedly recorded and sent. The argument of the learned counsels for the accused is totally falsified by their own document namely the booklet supplied to the accused Rajesh Kanna @ Chinni which was marked by the defence when PW22 was cross examined. The entire booklet was marked as Ex.D1 and certain portions of the statements of PW1 and 16 were used by the defence to contradict PW1 and PW16. The booklet in Ex.D1 not only shows the statements of PW1 and PW16 but it contains the statements of all the prosecution witnesses. This Court is not using any of the statements of the witnesses contained in Ex.D1 but interested and points out only the date seal found in each page of the booklet. It is an acknowledgment by the concerned accused that he has received all the documents contained in the booklet on 30.03.2015 at 10.30 a.m. The acknowledgment is in every page of the booklet. It shows even before the filing of final report the statements have come into existence and the accused were also supplied with the same when they were detained under Goondas Act. Therefore, the statements were recorded on the dates mentioned in it. That is to say the most of statements were recorded on the date of occurrence itself. In the original statements
U/S.161(3) of Cr.P.C. sent to Court it can be seen that the statements of PW7 Kuttiappan/Complainant was sent on 31.01.2015 itself. The initial of the Magistrate and the Court seal are all very clear on this aspect. The further statement of defacto complainant was recorded on 07.02.2015 and was received by the Magistrate on 08.02.2015 itself therefore there is no delay in recording the statements of witnesses and sending the same to Court. The above statements clearly mentions the names of all the accused particularly that of A2 and A3, as such no false implication with regard to A2 and A3 is possible. Thus the argument that documents were sent
belatedly to Court and it affects the case is rejected.
16. Conclusion:-
In view of the findings above it is concluded that A5 to A17 are held not guilty and acquitted of the charges U/S. 120B r/w. 302 of IPC, 147, 302 r/w. 120B r/w. 149 of IPC and 506(ii) r/w. 149 of IPC.
It is concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A2 U/Ss. 147, 302 r/w. 34 r/w. 149 of IPC. beyond reasonable doubts as such she is held guilty of the above said charges.
It is concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A3 U/Ss. 148, 302 r/w. 34 r/w. 149 of IPC. beyond reasonable doubts as such he is held guilty of the above said charges. A2 Logeswari @ Eswari, A3 Charles are convicted of the said charges. However, they are acquitted of the charges U/Ss.120B r/w. 302 of IPC.
17. Hearing on the question of sentence U/S. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., submissions of the accused and consideration by the Court :-
A2 and A3 both pleaded for leniency, citing their family circumstances. The learned counsels for the accused also pleaded for leniency in sentencing and argued that it is not a rarest of rare case calling for capital punishment. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that except for the fact that the murder had taken place in the Court campus, it is not a rarest of rare case.
This Court carefully considered the submissions of the accused, plea of counsels and that of the Additional Public Prosecutor. Election rivalry has led to violence on the Court campus which resulted in spilling of blood and loss of a life.
The facts and circumstances show that it is not a rarest of rare case, thus it does not call for death penalty. Considering the economical status of the accused persons, and the gravity of offences, they are appropriately sentenced and fined.
18. Result:-
A5 to A17 are acquitted of the charges U/Ss. 120B r/w. 302 of IPC, 147, 302 r/w. 120B r/w. 149 of IPC and 506(ii) r/w. 149 of IPC. under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
(a). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months.
(b). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years.
(c). A2 is convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
(d). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
(e). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three years.
(f). A3 is convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) r/w 34 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Five Years and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
(g) The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by the accused persons is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by and on behalf of the A2 and A3 shall stand cancelled. The bail bonds executed by and on behalf of the A5 to A17 shall stand cancelled except the bonds executed under section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
Order relating to case properties:-
The Material Objects which were marked as P.M.O.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after the lapse of time allowed for appeal or disposal of appeal if any.
Dictated by me to the Typist, directly computerized by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of November, 2023.
I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
Sl.
No. Date of Examination Name of the Witness Remarks
1 08.4.2021 Mr. Karmen PW1
2 09.4.2021 Mr. Mohan PW2
3 15.04.2021 Mr. Dinesh PW3
4 15.04.2021 Mr. Sakthivel PW4
5 15.04.2021 Mr.Syed Ali PW5
6 15.04.2021 Mr. Nazar PW6
7 19.04.2021 Mr.Kuttiappan PW7
8 26.04.2021 Mrs.Subbulakshmi, Grade I Const PW8
9 10.05.2021 Mr. Chanthan Babu PW9
10 13.05.2021 Mr.Madhavan PW10
11 17.05.2021 Mr.Moorthy PW11
12 17.05.2021 Mr. Mathi Raja PW12
13 17.05.2021 Mr. Pandeeswaran PW13
14 17.05.2021 Mr.Velmurugan PW14
15 01.09.2021 Mr. Saravanakumar PW15
16 09.09.2021 Mr.Williams PW16
17 09.09.2021 Mrs. Mary Elisa PW17
18 15.09.2021 Mrs. Azhagujothi, PW18
19 22.09.2021 Mr. Thiagarajan PW19
20 08.10.2021 Mr.Govindasamy PW20
21 22.10.2021 Dr. Vallinayagam PW21
22 28.10.2021 Mr. Mathiyarasu, Inspector of Police PW22
23 13.04.2023 Mr.Srinivasan PW23
24 13.04.2023 Mr. Gajendran PW24
25 05.06.2023 Mr. Marimuthu, Inspector of Police PW25
26 05.06.2023 Mr.Prabhakaran, PW26
27 20.06.2023 Mr. Ranjithkumar PW27
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:-
Sl.
No. Date Description of document Remark s
1 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW4 in Seizure Memo Ex.P1
2 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW4 in Seizure Memo Ex.P2
3 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW4 in Seizure Memo Ex.P3
4 31.01.2015 Signature of PW4 in Observation Memo Ex.P4

5 31.01.2015 Complaint Ex.P5
6 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW10 in Seizure Memo Ex.P6
7 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW10 in Seizure Memo Ex.P7
8 30/31.01.2015 Signature of PW10 in Seizure Memo Ex.P8
9 31.01.2015 Signature of PW 10 in Observation Memo Ex.P9
10 01.02.2015 Signature of PW13 in Confession Statement of A3 Ex.P10
11 01.02.2015 Signature of PW13 in Confession Statement of A4 Ex.P11
12 08.02.2015 Signature of PW14 in Confession Statement of A8 Ex.P12
13 01.02.2015 Signature of PW14 in Confession Statement of A9 Ex.P13
14 31.01.2015 Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P14
15 30/31.01.2015 FIR Ex.P15
16 30/31.01.2015 Seizure Memo for M.O. 6 & 7 Ex.P16
17 30/31.01.2015 Seizure Memo for M.O.3 Ex.P17
18 30/31.01.2015 Seizure Memo for M.O.4 & 5 Ex.P18
19 30/31.01.2015 Form 91 for M.O. 6 & 7 Ex.P19
20 30/31.01.2015 Form 91 for M.O.3 Ex.P20
21 30/31.01.2015 Form 91 for M.O.4 & 5 Ex.P21
22 30/31.01.2015 Form 91 for M.O.1 & 2 Ex.P22
23 31.01.2015 Observation Memo Ex.P23
24 31.01.2015 Rough Sketch Ex.P24
25 31.01.2015 Death report of Stalin Ex.P25
26 31.01.2015 Inquest report Ex.P26
27 31.01.2015 Report sent along with dead body Ex.P27
28 26.03.2015 Biological report Ex.P28
29 30.01.2015 Intimation to Police by Government Hospital Ex.P29
30 31.01.2015 Accident Register Ex.P30
31 07.02.2015 Requisition to send properties to Forensic Department Ex.P31
32 30/31.01.2015 Requisition to conduct Post Mortem Ex.P32
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosectuion:-
P.M.O.1 Blood stained torned shirt
P.M.O.2 Blood stained torned Banian
P.M.O.3 Cement stone
P.M.O.4 Blood stained Thar Sample
P.M.O.5 Unstained Thar Sample
P.M.O.6 Pen with Advocate seal
P.M.O.7 Voter Identification Card
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:-
Sl.
No. Date Name of the Witness Remarks
1 30.06.2022 Ramya Rajesh DW1
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defence :-

Sl. No. Date Description of document Remarks
1 30.03.2015 Booklet bearing
No.271/BCDFGISSSV/2015 Ex.D.1
List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL
I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

I Additional Sessions Court, City
Civil Court, Chennai
Draft/Fair Judgment in
SESSIONS CASE No.424/2019 Dated: 07-11-2023.