HC sets aside trial court order in murder case,acquits accused

Setting aside a lower court order, the Madras High Court has acquitted an accused in a murder case on the grounds that the trial was not conducted properly.
The IV Additional Sessions Judge had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under IPC section 302 (punishment for murder).
A Division Bench, which allowed the appeal filed by the accused Manikandan alias Pillappa of Kodungayur in Chennai, objected to the trial court judge allowing the prosecutor to recall a witness after several months to again examine him when no new fact was in the hands.
It also criticised the public prosecutor and trial court judge for "harassing" the prosecution witness, who was the son of the victim, by calling him again and again and not recording the reasons for the same.

The matter relates to the murder of Selvam by Manikandan. Selvam had slapped his brother-in-law and Manikandan's father Kesavan after he allegedly used abusive words against him and his wife. Manikandan had allegedly vowed to take revenge on Selvam following this.
He allegedly attacked Selvam with a knife, killing him on the spot on November 1,2010.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu, yesterday set-aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, finding fault in the way the trial was conducted.
"The learned judge has only exhibited his ignorance in allowing the prosecutor to recall the witness after several months to again examine the witness in chief examination when no new fact was in the hands of the learned public prosecutor to be introduced," the bench said.

"We feel very sorry to say that the public prosecutor who conducted the trial had also been quite indifferent and equally ignorant of the legal positions."
"Had the learned public prosecutor been a little vigilant or at least, had the learned judge been watchful, without being a silent spectator, in this case, the anomalies mentioned above, which have impelled us to acquit the accused would not have come into being."
(REOPENS LGM1)
The bench, while referring to several Supreme Court judgments, said in number of cases, the legal fraternity has the tendency to appeal for adjournments in the lower courts, saying they have approached high courts for some relief.

Without knowing whether the applicant has been granted any relief, the lower courts simply adjourn the matter, it said.
The bench, citing an apex court judgement, said "we are pained to say apparently we do not find any change in the scenario, more particularly the mindset of the legal fraternity and judges of the subordinate judiciary to such kinds of unnecessary adjournments in many cases without recording any reason whatsoever."
The court observed that "it is none of the business of the members of the judiciary to please the legal fraternity by granting uncalled for adjournments for mere asking, ignoring the legal mandate of section 309 CrPC."

"Granting such unnecessary adjournments, in our considered view by itself, is an interference into the independence of the judiciary," it said.
Citing an apex court judgement, the bench said the supreme court had expressed its "anguish in ever so many words in its rich vocabulary with regard to this (adjournments).