STATE Vs. V.P. PANDI @ ATTACK PANDI
LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-751
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
March 21,2019
STATE
Appellant
VERSUS
V.P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HORI RAM SINGH VS. CROWN [REFERRED TO]STATE OF NEVADA VS. ARCHANIAN [REFERRED TO]
MURUGESAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
R. VS. BULLDOG [REFERRED TO]
HER MAJESTY VS. JAIYHI HE [REFERRED TO]
SHREEKANTIAH RAMAYYA MUNIPALLI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
WILLIE WILLIAM SLANEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K C MATHEW VS. STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
AHER RAJA KHIMA VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA VS. N P MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN ALIAS RAJAN K V SADANANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN ALIAS RAJAN K V SADANANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAGIRATH [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KASHI RAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JAGDEO [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL AHMED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MANSINGH [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA HABIBULLA H SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE N C T OF DELHI VS. NAVJOT SANDHU ALIAS AFSAN GURU [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. K NARASIMHACHARY [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
RAVI ALIAS RAVICHANDRAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
CHOUDHURY PARVEEN SULTANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ARULVELU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE TR P S LODHI COLONY VS. SANJEEV NANDA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAMDARAS AHIR [REFERRED TO]
K.S.PANDURANGA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SISTER MINA LALITA BARUWA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ANVAR P.V. VS. P.K. BASHEER [REFERRED TO]
L. LAXMIKANTA VS. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
K ANBAZHAGAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
K ANBAZHAGAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ANJAN DASGUPTA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SONU @ AMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BHASKARRAO & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
M/S. LYCA PRODUCTIONS VS. J. MANIMARAN [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P.N.PRAKASH, J. -
(1.)Crl. A. (MD) No. 274 of 2011 is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2009 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, acquitting all the accused in S.C No.3 of 2009. Criminal Revision Case (MD) 310 of 2014 is filed by Poongodi, the mother of the deceased Vinoth Kumar (D1), assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2009. In view of the commonality of issues involved, the decision in both cases shall be governed by this common judgment.
(2.)In order to appreciate the issues involved in these cases, we proceed to preface our judgment by setting out certain facts which are indisputably widely known to the public, and which we proceed to take judicial notice in terms of Sec. 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, we draw sustenance from the judgment of Chandrachud, J (as he then was) in Onkar Nath v. Delhi Administration [(1977) 2 SCC 611], wherein it was observed as under:
"6. One of the points urged before us is whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on 8/5/1974. Sec. 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Sec. 57 enumerates facts of which the Court "shall" take judicial notice and states that on all matters of public history, literature, science or art the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. The list of facts mentioned in Sec. 57 of which the Court can take judicial notice is not exhaustive and indeed the purpose of the sec. is to provide that the Court shall take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of which the Court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. Recognition of facts without formal proof is a matter of expediency and no one has ever questioned the need and wisdom of accepting the existence of matters which are unquestionably within public knowledge. (See Taylor, 11th Edn., pp. 3-12; Wig more, Sec. 2571, footnote;Stephen's Digest, notes to Article 58; Whitley Stokes' Anglo-Indian Codes, Vol. II, p. 887.) Shutting the judicial eye to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to commonsense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wasteful ritual. No court therefore insists on formal proof, by evidence, of notorious facts of history, past or present. The date of poll, the passing away of a man of eminence and events that have rocked the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof. Accordingly, the courts below were justified in assuming, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on 5/5/1974 and that a strike paralysing the civic life of the Nation was undertaken by a sec. of workers on 8/5/1974."
(3.)The Tamil daily "Dinakaran" was founded in Madurai by Mr.K.P Kandasamy in 1977. In 2005, the newspaper was acquired from Mr. Kandaswamy's son Mr. K.P.K Kumaran by the Sun Network. The Sun Network is a mass media conglomerate founded by Mr.Kalanithi Maran in 1991. Mr. Kalanithi Maran is the Chairman of Sun Network and is the son of the former Union Minister late Mr. Murasoli Maran and grand-nephew of the former Chief Minister late Mr. M. Karunanidhi of the D.M.K.
(2.)In order to appreciate the issues involved in these cases, we proceed to preface our judgment by setting out certain facts which are indisputably widely known to the public, and which we proceed to take judicial notice in terms of Sec. 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, we draw sustenance from the judgment of Chandrachud, J (as he then was) in Onkar Nath v. Delhi Administration [(1977) 2 SCC 611], wherein it was observed as under:
"6. One of the points urged before us is whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on 8/5/1974. Sec. 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Sec. 57 enumerates facts of which the Court "shall" take judicial notice and states that on all matters of public history, literature, science or art the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. The list of facts mentioned in Sec. 57 of which the Court can take judicial notice is not exhaustive and indeed the purpose of the sec. is to provide that the Court shall take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of which the Court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. Recognition of facts without formal proof is a matter of expediency and no one has ever questioned the need and wisdom of accepting the existence of matters which are unquestionably within public knowledge. (See Taylor, 11th Edn., pp. 3-12; Wig more, Sec. 2571, footnote;Stephen's Digest, notes to Article 58; Whitley Stokes' Anglo-Indian Codes, Vol. II, p. 887.) Shutting the judicial eye to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to commonsense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wasteful ritual. No court therefore insists on formal proof, by evidence, of notorious facts of history, past or present. The date of poll, the passing away of a man of eminence and events that have rocked the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof. Accordingly, the courts below were justified in assuming, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on 5/5/1974 and that a strike paralysing the civic life of the Nation was undertaken by a sec. of workers on 8/5/1974."
(3.)The Tamil daily "Dinakaran" was founded in Madurai by Mr.K.P Kandasamy in 1977. In 2005, the newspaper was acquired from Mr. Kandaswamy's son Mr. K.P.K Kumaran by the Sun Network. The Sun Network is a mass media conglomerate founded by Mr.Kalanithi Maran in 1991. Mr. Kalanithi Maran is the Chairman of Sun Network and is the son of the former Union Minister late Mr. Murasoli Maran and grand-nephew of the former Chief Minister late Mr. M. Karunanidhi of the D.M.K.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.