(S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
Sekar @ Dhanasekar ______________________________ Appellant
v.
State Rep. by Isnpector of Police (L&O) ______________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1830 of 2013, decided on February 16, 2017
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 966 of 2014
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Both the appeal and the special leave petition are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007, dated 29.07.2008 whereby the High Court while dismissing the said appeal affirmed the judgment of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, convicting the appellant/petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 109 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively.
2. We have gone through the record of the case and in particular, the relevant evidence. We find that the deceased, Dhanpal was murdered by the accused when he was taking a walk at Marina Beach on 01.07.2005 at 6:00 p.m. accompanying by his daughter. The daughter who lodged an FIR deposed as P.W.1. She stated that she was walking along with the deceased Dhanpal when the assailants came from behind. She heard one of them exhort other with the words “stab and kill him”. Thereupon, the accused Ganesa Pandian, Puduraja, Ramamurthi and Sekar stabbed her father with a knife on his stomach, hip and head and thereafter they fled towards the beach with the blood stained knives.
3. She has described in detail, the motive, namely, some disagreement over the administration of community Trust and the performance of a festival. The accused had taken exception to the frequency with which the deceased had conducted the puja. This witness also participated in a Test Identification Prade where about 50 to 60 people were presented for identification. She correctly identified the assailants. It is clear to note that this witness was cross-examined with the suggestion that she was not at Marina Beach at the time of incident but was in her office. The defence controverted her with the absence of a swipe of the card which was supposed to be made at the time of exit. She has admitted that she had not swiped the card while exiting the office and that was a wrong committed by her.
4. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
5. The appeal and the special leave petition are, accordingly, dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1830/2013
Sekar @ Dhanasekar _______________________________ Appellant
v.
State Rep. by Inspector of Police (L&O) ________________ Respondent
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 966/2014
Date : 16/02/2017 These appeal/SLP were called on for hearing today.
(Before S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, Adv. (NP)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.
Ms. Nithya, Adv.
Mrs. Mahalakshmi, Adv.
Mr. Parthasarathi, Av.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
6. The appeal and the special leave petition are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
