NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL, M.P.

A Project Of Criminal Procedure Code-II

Involving Case Analysis Of
State v. Manikandan And Ors 2015 (5) SCALE 60

Submitted to, Submitted by,

Prof. Divya Salim Ajita Nadkarni
2012 BA LLB 101
1
 Acknowledgement
With my highest gratitude I would take this opportunity to acknowledge the role played by
various people in the making of my project. Firstly I would like to thank my parents who
have always supported me. Secondly I would like to thank Divya Madam who was
instrumental in guiding me in making this project.

2
 Table of Contents
Contents Page No

Material Facts.......................................................................................................5

Legal Principals Involved.....................................................................................7

Issues Involved.....................................................................................................8

Judgement.............................................................................................................8

Bibliography.......................................................................................................11

3
4
 Material Facts
1. This is a case of previous enmity between the parties. There were glaring
discrepancies found in the complaint.
2. The wife of the deceased was not a reliable witness.
3. Prosecution case was that A-1 and A-2 were two brothers having a grudge against the
deceased and due to the said motive when deceased along with his wife ,was
proceeding on his bicycle , A-1,A-2,A-3 and A-4 assaulted him with Aruval causing
his instantaneous death.
4. Complaint was lodged by the wife of the deceased.
5. The husband of PW-13 Amrithalingam was murdered by one Kaliamurthy and his
associates. It is also a fact that Kalaimurthy was also murdered.The said eye witness
said stated that the occurrence took place on 24.9.1999 at about 10.30 AM while she
was waiting for the bus to go to a grocery shop to purchase groceries.
6. PW-13 also stated that A-1,A-2 and A-3 had assaulted with Aruval at
Gopalakrishnan.In the cross-examination she identified A-1,A-2,A-3 and A-4 and
according to her those 4 accused persons were holding Aruval in their hands at time
of occurrence.But in chief she deposed that Manikandan ,who was A-1 had assaulted
Gopalakrishnan.
7. According to PW-12,there were 6 persons present during the occurrence and out of
them,four accused assaulted Gopalakrishnan with Aruval whereas PW-13 deposed in
her cross examination that only four persons were present at the time of occurrence.
8. Prosecution had produced MO-11 and MO-12 by cycles and according to PW-14, a
Herojet Cycles was recovered from the place of occurrence.
9. While PW-13 who is Mahazar witness deposed in the chief examination that only
Hercules cycle was recovered from the place of occurrence and not Herojet cycle.
10. Appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 19 th July, 2006 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in criminal appeal no. 389 and 575 of 2003
together with criminal revision numbers 201 and 1389 of 2002 were by the High
Court has dismissed both the appeals and both the revisions confirming the judgement
delivered by additional sessions judge Nagapattinam.
11. There are six accused as recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
12. State preferred criminal appeals against the judgement in Supreme Court.

5
 13. The wife of the deceased preferred two criminal revisions against the judgements of
the trial court.
14. A1’s brother Kalimurthi was murdered due to previous enmity by Panerselvem and
two others.
15. So A2 and A1, who are the sons of Kalimurthi had grudge against the deceased
Gopalkrishnan as he had preferred a complaint against them in respect of an incident
which took place on 21st October 1992. It was alleged that due to the said motive
while Gopalkrishnan along with his wife Vijaya was proceeding on his bicycle, A1,
A2, A3 and A4 assaulted Gopalkrishnan with Aruval causing instantaneous death.
16. According to the prosecution, accused Murugesan had assaulted the deceased
Gopalkrishnan with Aruvel on the right hand.
17. Then accused Senthil Kumar had assaulted the deceased Gopalkrishnan with Aruvel
on left ankle and right thigh causing grievous injuries. Accused Manikandan had
assaulted the deceased Gopalkrishnan with Aruvel on the right shoulder and accused
Rajendran had assaulted the deceased on right ankle and right thigh.
18. There is no overt act attributed against accused Harikrishnan and accused Kathiravan.
19. It is the case of prosecution that accused Harikrishnan and Kathiravan were keeping
vigil at the place of occurrence while the other accused were committing the crime.
20. A complaint was lodged by wife of the deceased before the village administrative
officer who in turn preferred a complaint before PW-13.
21. The inspector PW-14 took up the investigation, visited the place of occurrence,
prepared observation Mahazar and rough sketch and recovered material objects held
inquest, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and filed the charge sheet.
22. The learned judicial magistrate took up the case and after furnishing copies under
section 20 of CRPC committed the case to the court of sessions for trial under section
209 CRPC.
23. Vijaya was examined as PW-12.
24. In the complaint, she had categorically stated that A2 and A1 and A3 had assaulted
her husband with Aruvel. But when she deposed before the court as PW-12, she
implicated six persons.

6
 Legal Principals Involved
Indian Penal Code - Section 302

Punishment for murder-

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to fine.

Indian Penal Code – Section 34

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention-

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all,each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.

Section 207 of CrPC

Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents-

In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report,the Magistrate shall
without delay furnish to the accused ,free of cost, a copy of each of the following-

(i) the police report

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom
the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses,excluding therefrom any part
in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police
officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with
the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:

Provided that the Magistrate may , after perusing any such part of a statement as is
referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the
request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the
Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:

7
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v)
is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he
will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.

Section 209 of CrPC

Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by

it-

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, he shall –

a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case
may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code
relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;
b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail; remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trail;
c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to be produced in evidence;
d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

Issues Involved
Whether the High Court was justified in sustaining the judgement of acquittal as recorded by
the Trial Court?

Judgement
Trial Court:

1. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused while holding that the prosecution could not
prove the charges levelled against the accused.

8
 2. The Trail Court examined fourteen prosecution witnesses. As against accused
Manikandan and Harikrishnan, the case was split up.
3. The Trial Court in both the matters held that the prosecution could not prove the
charges levelled against the accused and accordingly acquitted all the accused. Hence
the appeals were filed by the state before the High Court.

High Court:
1. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the reasoning given by the Sessions Judge.High
Court found that there was glaring discrepancies found in the complaint filed by the
wife of the deceased.
2. Discrepancies in the statements of PW-12 and PW-13 were noted.
3. No weapon was recovered from the accused.
There were also discrepancies in the statements of PW-12, 13 and 14 which were not
explained by the prosecution.
4. It was pointed out that the cycle got punctured and Gopalakrishnan took another cycle
from the nearby shop and proceeded to his house.
5. The High Court after considering the fact of the case and after appreciating the
evidence, which was adduced before the Trial Court, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution case suffers from defects and held that the learned session judge have
come to definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the reasoning given by the additional
session judge and refused to interfere with the said decisions.
6. The High Court has noticed that the wife of the deceased Vijaya had preferred the
complaint soon after the occurrence on 24th of September 1996 at about 12 noon
before the village administrative officer.
7. The High Court correctly held that there is a glaring discrepancy in the complaint
before the court and in her evidence.
8. Decisions were cited at the bar. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is not necessary to deal with each of them.
9. However we have noticed in Murugesan S/o Muthu and Ors. Vs. State through
Inspector of Police, (2012) 10 SCC 383, wherein this Court has noted that the
principles laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, (1933-

9
 34) 611A 398: AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), have been followed by this Court in a series of
subsequent pronouncements. Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor (supra) has also been
considered and the general principles regarding powers of the appeal against an order
of acquittal, has been culled out by this Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415, which are as follows:
a. An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
b. The Code of Criminal Procedue, 1973 puts on limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and or law.
c. Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and
sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,
“glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court
to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusions.
d. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there
is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement and order so
passed by the High Court. Hence, these appeals are dismissed.

Supreme Court:

1. It is no doubt that the previous enmity which is also reflected from the evidence of the
PW-13 who claimed to be an eye witness.
2. PW-12 Vijaya in her evidence had stated that after the occurrence.she went to the
Village Administrative Officer at about 12.30 PM narrated the facts which were
reduced to writing and then read over to her.

10
 3. It is noticed that PW-13,the Village Administrative Officer after he came to learn of
the said incident, went at the place of occurrence and prepared a complaint.He further
stated that Vijaya had not given any complaint to him.
4. It further appears that PW-3 got the information through his assistant one Kittu ,but he
was not examined as a prosecution witness.Kittu was declared as a hostile witness.
5. It is further noticed that the deceased with his wife Vijaya had gone in a bicycle to
redeem her jewels from Agricultural Co-operative Society and that the clerk had
informed that the Secretary of the Society was not available there and so they returned
to their home in the same bicycle.
6. The prosecution examined PW-6 named Bhaskaran who was the clerk of the said
Bank.He stated that on the date of the occurrence,Gopalakrishnan did not visist the
said bank.
7. It further appears from the evidence of PW-12 that soon after the occurrence she had
placed the body of her husband on her lap but interestingly no blood stained sari was
recovered from PW-12, which creates doubt as to the very presence of PW-12 at the
time and place of the said occurrence.
8. High Court correctly noticed the said discrepancies which was also found out by the
Trial Court and thereafter correctly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. It is found that the High Court has given its reasoning in respect of the evidence,
which was adduced before the Trial Court, in particular the wife of the deceased
Vijaya.
10. It appears that the High Court has correctly analyzed the evidence and found that
there is glaring discrepancies found in the complaint preferred by Vijaya.

Bibliography
1. Supreme Court Cases

11