Read Full Judgment: Manikandan v. State
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals, one filed by Manikandan (accused no.2) and the other by the accused no.1, whose identity is not provided. Both appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court upheld their conviction and life sentence. The case revolves around the fatal assault on Balamurugan by the accused on October 4, 2007, following a dispute regarding the delivery of idlis.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Balamurugan, visited the house of the accused no.1 to inquire about the undelivered idlis, leading to a confrontation. The accused no.1 then attacked Balamurugan with a billhook, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Balamurugan’s family members, who testified to the sequence of events leading to the fatal assault.
The defense argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight initiated by Balamurugan when he visited the accused’s house regarding the undelivered idlis. They contended that the accused did not have any premeditated intent to kill Balamurugan and invoked Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, seeking a conviction under a lesser offense.
However, the court critically examined the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 to PW-5, who were closely related to the deceased. It emerged that these witnesses were “taught” by the police at the station a day before their testimony, raising questions about the integrity of their statements.
The court found the police’s intervention in tutoring witnesses to be a gross misuse of power and a serious violation of the judicial process. It also noted that independent eyewitnesses were not examined by the prosecution, casting doubt on the authenticity of the case.
Based on these observations, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court were deemed to have erred in convicting the appellants. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants.
Additionally, the court ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the police officials involved in tutoring the witnesses, emphasizing the need for appropriate action against those found responsible for misconduct.
