There is no Requirement to Interfere the Orders of Court when Allegations were Proved beyond any Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court of India
A call by using the mobile phone of the deceased just to divert the attention of the police so that he could escape in case the locked door was opened proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. This honorable judgement was passed by Supreme Court of India in the case of Shanmugam vs. State if inspector of police of Tamil Nadu [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.900 OF 2010] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Khanna and the Hon’ble Mr Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
This appeal by special leave was filed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein the conviction of the present appellant was upheld and his appeal was dismissed. The appellant was arrested by Sub-Inspector of Police for offences punishable under Sections 51 r/w2 63, 52 A r/w 68-A and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. He was then brought to the Office of the Video Piracy Cell and was kept in custody in the same room as that of the Head Constable Kaliappan. The appellant made an attempt to escape from the custody by attacking the deceased on his head with an iron stool causing his death. However, he was caught by while attempting to escape. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Sections 224 r/w 511 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellant appealed before the High Court who confirmed the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the appellant has approached this Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal. The learned council argued that the conviction on the basis of the assumptions is not sustainable in law.
The court opinioned that, “It appears that the accused had made a call to the control room by using the mobile phone of the deceased just to divert the attention of the police so that he could escape in case the locked door was opened. Perusal of Ex.P.10 shows that on receipt of the phone call, an ambulance was sent to the Street, near Kalyan Silks, which came back after waiting from 3.30 a.m. to 4.30 a.m. as nobody was found injured at the place of commotion.”
The court dismissed the appeal stating that, “perusal of the evidence in its entirety clearly shows that the offence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. by which time PW-17 had already left the place of occurrence and at the relevant point of time the accused and the deceased were alone inside the premises of the office of the Video Piracy Cell. Under the above circumstance, it was for the accused to explain under what circumstances the deceased was dead. In our view, the accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation in this regard.”