Lower court order convicting police inspector set asideJustice V Parthiban observed that the chargesheet did not anywhere indicate that the offence was committed by Madhavan under IPC Section 120(b) read with IPC Section 409. In the absence of the charge, the court is unable to appreciate as to how the lower court can convict the appellant under the above section.
TOP NEWS
BRIEFS
VIDEOS
TIMES TOP 10
CITY
Lower court order convicting police inspector set aside
Kaushik Kannan | tnn | Nov 29, 2019, 04:54 IST
TNN
Get Notifications on latest Madurai News
Stating that a lower court has unfortunately determined to hold an appellant guilty on sympathetic basis following the death of a woman, the Madras high court has set aside an order, convicting and sentencing an
inspector of police to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the Thanjavur Medical College had registered a case against three people, including a woman Akila alias Akilandeswari for cheating money from the people by assuring to secure jobs.
The case was investigated by the inspector of police and appellant, C Sethumani Madhavan. He took Akila in custody and made her stay in a lodge where she committed suicide after writing a suicide note to her mother in 2007. Based on that, a case was registered against Madhavan, head constable Ganesan and another person Balasubramaniam.
The Thanjavur fast track mahila court on March 20, 2017, convicted and sentenced Madhavan to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 120(b) of IPC (punishment for criminal conspiracy) read with Section 409 of IPC (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), 10 years rigorous imprisonment under IPC section 409 and two years imprisonment under Section 343 (wrongful confinement for three or more days) and further directed to undergo the sentence concurrently. The court acquitted Ganesan, while Balasubramaniam died during the trial.
Madhavan moved the high court Madurai bench in 2017, seeking to set aside the lower court order and acquit him of all charges. Justice V Parthiban observed that the chargesheet did not anywhere indicate that the offence was committed by Madhavan under IPC Section 120(b) read with IPC Section 409. In the absence of the charge, the court is unable to appreciate as to how the lower court can convict the appellant under the above section.
The judge observed that evidence shows that Akila was not wrongfully confined due to which conviction under IPC Section 343 cannot be countenanced. The judge further added that the appellant’s name was not mentioned in the suicide note.
Stating that the court is unable to see an evidence connecting the appellant to the charges framed against him, the judge set aside the order of the trial court and acquitted him of all charges
