Shortcut approach to acquittal slammed

Justice M Venugopal on directing the trial court to restore the case and dispose it within two months, said “It is to be borne in mind that a court of law is meant to deliver substantial justice to the parties to secure the ends of justice.” 

The appellant Sakthivel had preferred a criminal appeal against the acquittal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram. The Magistrate in his order had held that “For the past 10 years the case has been pending for want of complainant’s evidence. 

Only on December 12, 2015 the complainant’s side evidence was closed. Hence, this court thinks that the complainant has no interest to conduct the case based on his failure to cooperate for the past 10 years. Now, neither the complainant has appeared nor his council. Hence, this case is dismissed and the accused acquitted.” 

Sakthivel had contended at the High Court that the complaint was taken on file during 2007 and he was examined as prime witness on July 16, 2007. Thereafter, nearly eight years was taken for cross examining him, which reveals that the trial court had taken an erroneous view in concluding that he was not interested in prosecuting the case. 

Justice Venugopal on noting that the discretion to dismiss the complaint must be exercised by a court in fair, judicious, dispassionate and circumspect manner, said “the absence of the complainant on the given date of hearing may not be a ground for acquitting the accused in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. The acid test would be one of good faith and to dismiss the complaint because of the absence of a complainant on a given day cannot be passed for the purpose of mere statistics.”

The Madras High Court has reduced the punishment imposed on a person for causing the death of his mother from five years to three years after holding that it was not caused with an intention and that his act squarely comes under Section 304 Part II of IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As per the case, the accused Venkatachalam and his paternal uncle Arumugam had a quarrel. During the melee, the latter had taken a wooden log and threatened the former. In retaliation, the former took a stone and threw it on him. But since he missed, he threw another stone. But this time, the stone hit his mother Palaniammal who intervened resulting in her suffering an injury on her head. She subsequently succumbed to her death on the way to the hospital. 

The district and sessions court in Salem, on holding that the act of the accused shows that he has not caused the death of the mother with intention, said since the accused has thrown the stone with a knowledge that it is likely to cause death but at the same time without any intention to cause the death of his mother, punished him under section 304 Part II of IPC to five years RI and pay a fine of Rs 1,000. 

However, Justice M Venugopal while upholding his conviction as per section 304 Part II of IPC held that “This court on taking note of the important fact that the act of the accused was not a premeditated one and only because of sudden eruption of quarrel, the instant occurrence had taken place, this Court by taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling manner reduces the punishment of five years RI imposed on the accused to that of three years RI.”