CHANDRU ALIAS CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two appeals in C.A.Nos.592 and 636 of 2010.

(2.) BOTH these appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in S.C.No.237 of 2009 whereby the accused/appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: ACCUSED CHARGES FINDING PUNISHMENT A-1 & A-2 120B IPC Guilty 7 years RI along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence A-2 302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence A-1 302 r/w 120B IPC Guilty Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant in C.A.No.592 of 2010, the learned Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari would submit that in the instant case, the private complaint filed by P.W.1, should not have been taken on file in view of the final report filed by the respondent police based on Ex.P11, complaint, and Ex.P12, FIR,as against one Venki @ Venkatesh for the offence under Sec.304(ii) IPC; that without even disclosing as to how the investigating agency was in error, entertaining the private complaint and further convicting the appellant/A-2 are without any basis and legally unfounded; that it is pertinent to note that the appellant was shown as one of the witnesses under Ex.D4; that in such circumstances, terming him as an accused in the private complaint merely because he was staying along with the deceased on the date of occurrence, is erroneous; that the allegations found in the private complaint, Ex.P1, is an exaggerated version of P.W.1 and also an after thought, and thus it should not have been entertained; that when the fact remains that the final report filed by the respondent police, is not struck down, proceeding with the trial based on the private complaint, is erroneous; that even as per the final report filed by the respondent police, the said Venki is shown as an accused; that since he died, the case was closed as abated; that taking advantage of the same, the private complaint was filed alleging that Venki had informed P.W.1 as regards the alleged incident, and presuming that a murder had taken place which would indicate that the case is a false one; that the allegation that Venki had informed P.W.1 on 31.10.2004, that the appellant and A-1 had killed the deceased was introduced only after the death of Venki and not before in any of the petitions before any Court or in any of the representations before the police; that Exs.D1 to D4 would go to show that the deceased was a drug addict and his friend Venki was a drug peddler; that only out of over dosage by Venki, the deceased Arun Prabhu died; that even according to the evidence of P.W.1, on 31.10.2004 itself, the appellant and A-1 were enquired by the police; that these aspects were not at all considered by the trial Court; that it is also to be noted that none had spoken about the appellant as one involved in the offence; that even according to P.W.1, after the injection was made by Venki to the deceased, he was conscious, and the report of the postmortem Doctor also speaks of rigor mortis having been set in; that this would clearly be indicative of the fact that the cause of death is not on account of the one as put forth by the prosecution; that it is pertinent to note that the said Venki was very well known to the deceased; that there is a clear proof that the deceased was conscious when Venki administered the drug, and there is no evidence to show that thereafter, he was conscious and moved about; that under the circumstances, the charge of murder framed against the appellant, is wholly without substance; that apart from that, there is absolutely no evidence to show that there was enmity between A-1 and the deceased because of P.W.10; that from the polygraph and brain mapping reports and also narco analysis report, it could be seen that Venki had committed the act of injecting over dosage to the deceased; that merely because the appellant is a medical college student and he was in the same room along with A-1, it cannot be stated that there was a conspiracy; that in fact, the appellant was never informed of any trip from Chidambaram to Madras by the deceased or A-1; that there was no proof of communication between A-1 and A-2 of any device or plan earlier; that the appellant and the deceased met only at 9.30 P.M. On 30.10.2004, and before that, from the morning onwards, the deceased was injecting drug along with Venki; that in such a situation, the trial Court has erroneously concluded that the appellant went there and committed the crime; that it is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there should be chain of circumstances without break; but in the instant case, there is no link at all; that when the case of the complainant against the appellant itself is against the investigation and the final report filed by the respondent police, it should have been rejected; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and the appellant/A-2 be acquitted by this Court.