HC acquits one from attempt-to-murder case

Alleged offence was committed following dispute over playing cricket

The Madras High Court Bench here on Friday set aside the conviction and seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed by a lower court on an individual for having attempted to murder another person following a dispute between them over playing cricket.

Allowing a criminal appeal filed by Doiyan alias Balu of Pattukottai in Thanjavur district, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan held that the prosecution case suffered from several infirmities and therefore it would not be safe to confirm the conviction without sufficient evidence.

The judge pointed out that as per the statement of the victim made before the police as well as the trial court, the appellant as well as another individual had attempted to kill him when he was passing through Murugan Temple in Puthupettai Road at around 9 p.m. on May 28, 2006.

While trying to escape from the assailants, the victim reportedly fell on the road with his chest facing down.

Then, he suffered two cut injuries behind his neck and he claimed that one injury was caused by the appellant and the other by the latter’s accomplice.

However, the medical examination report showed that the victim had suffered only one injury behind his neck and therefore the trial court had acquitted the appellant’s accomplice and convicted him alone on the assumption that the injury must have been caused by him.

Not in agreement with the appellant having been convicted on the basis of such an assumption, Ms. Justice Jagadeesan said that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that no one else but the appellant could have caused the sole injury behind the victim’s neck.

Further, the victim had categorically stated before the trial court that he made a complaint about the incident to the then Inspector of Pattukottai Police Station at around 10.30 p.m. at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital on the same day of the incident and that the Inspector recorded it in writing.

However, a Head Constable attached to the police station had deposed before the trial court that he recorded the First Information Report in the case after obtaining the victim’s statement at Ward No.26 of the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital at 9 a.m. on the next day of the incident.

Discrepancy

The discrepancy leads to a doubt over the first complaint having been suppressed by the police, the judge said.

There was also a contradiction in the Head Constable’s statement who claimed to have visited the victim at ward no.26 though the latter was actually admitted in ward no.4, she added.