HC says trial court verdict incorrect, remands case back to it

: Describing the trial court judgement in a murder case as improper and incorrect, the Madras High court today set it aside and remanded the case back to the same court at Periyakulam for fresh disposal.
Justice P N Prakash said even the Additional Public Prosecutor and appelants' counsel fairly conceded that the verdict of the Additional District Judge at Periyakulam deserved to be set aside.
"But the state government had not challenged it for reasons best known to them, despite blatant infirmities."
The prosecution case was that one Seeniappan had borrowed Rs 50,000 from Ayappan and returned it. However the latter refused to give back the promisory note.

There were frequent quarrels between the two as Ayappan claimed Seeniappan had to pay more.
On June 20, 2014, a seven-member armed gang led by Ayappan and his two sons went to Senniappan's house and attacked him and his son, who succumbed to injuries later.

The judge noted that cases were registered against all of them, including Ayappan (who died during the trial). But charges were framed under IPC 302 (murder) against only Ayappan and his two sons and not against others. "It is not known why the trial court did this," the judge said.
Also charges under IPC 307 (attempt to murder) were not framed against the two but done for the others. The first infirmty of the trial court judgement began here, he said.

It had sentenced the two sons to seven years imprisonment under IPC 304 (ii) (punishment- imprisonment for 10 years of fine or both), though charges were not framed under it.
Similary, four others were slapped with fine under IPC 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), not found either in the FIR or the charge sheet, he said.
The judge said the trial court believed the ocular testimony, held that the accused had motive against the deceased and concluded all of them came to Seeniappan's house armed, attacked him and one of them stabbed his son to death.

The trial court judge had then held the accused had acted on a sudden impulse. "The finding of the trial court appears prima facie incorrect," the judge said.
He went through the trial court judgement and directed all accused to appear before that court on March 2, 2015.
Though the accused moved the Bench seeking to quash their conviction and sentence, it directed the Registry to suo motu register criminal revision petition and issue notice to all of them, suspended the sentence and bail to one of the sons, but not for the one who stabbed the deceased.
The registry registered the suo motu case questioning the legality and correctness of the trial court judgement, praying to quash it and conduct a fresh trial.