Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder

The Madras High Court has acquitted two men and reduced the sentence of the primary accused in a 2011 murder case. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the co-accused and concluded that the primary accused did not possess the requisite mens rea for a murder conviction. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan, highlights the importance of consistency in eyewitness testimonies and the evaluation of mens rea in determining the appropriate charge.

The case stems from the murder of a police informer on August 20, 2011. The prosecution alleged that Prakash @ Thavakkalai (A1), along with Prasad @ Panai Prasad (A2) and Shankar Raj (A3), conspired to kill the deceased due to his role in providing information to the police that led to actions against A1. The incident occurred when the deceased was walking with his sister and other relatives, and A1 allegedly stabbed him with a broken bottle, resulting in his death on August 25, 2011. The trial court convicted all three accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of key eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the deceased. Initially, PW1 (sister of the deceased), PW2 (husband of PW1), and PW3 (son of PW1) supported the prosecution’s case but later turned hostile during cross-examination. The court found it unsafe to rely on their testimonies, particularly as they failed to consistently identify all accused involved in the crime.

Justice Sunder Mohan emphasized that while the initial testimonies implicated A1, they did not clearly establish the involvement of A2 and A3. The evidence presented, including the Accident Register (Ex.P2) and the statements of PW6 (the deceased’s wife), consistently referred to the presence of only one assailant. The court observed, “The deceased had told PW6 that it was A1 who inflicted the injury with a broken bottle. There was no mention of A2 and A3’s involvement.”

The court applied principles from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anbazhagan v. State to differentiate between murder and culpable homicide. It concluded that A1’s actions, while resulting in death, did not demonstrate the requisite intention for murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC. Justice Mohan explained, “Considering the nature of the weapon used, a single stab wound, and the circumstances of the attack, it is challenging to conclude that A1 intended to commit murder. Therefore, A1 is found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (I) of the IPC.”

Justice Sunder Mohan remarked, “The prosecution has failed to conclusively prove the involvement of A2 and A3. The inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the delay in filing the FIR further weaken the case against them. However, the evidence does support the conviction of A1 for culpable homicide.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the necessity of establishing clear intent in criminal cases and the challenges of relying on inconsistent witness testimonies. By acquitting A2 and A3 and modifying A1’s conviction, the judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice based on credible evidence and proper legal standards. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving similar charges, reinforcing the importance of thorough evidence evaluation in criminal trials.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024