JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the
IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations, as recorded by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No.189 of 2005.
(3.) The prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows.
PW-1 is the wife of PW-4. The accused and PW-4 are the sons of
Alagu Ambalam (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). PW-2 is the son
of PW-1. Alagu Ambalam had certain immovable properties which he
partitioned 10 years before the occurrence, and he regained a piece of land
namely 10 cents, which is a poramboke, for his livelihood. The accused was
insisting him to give that land also. There arose a civil dispute between
them. It also ended in favour of Alagu Ambalam. On the day of occurrence
i.e, 26.05.2003 at about 7.00 A.M., PW-1 was going to the garden to pluck
vegetables. At that time, her father-in-law, the said Alagu Ambalam, was
cutting Karuvela trees. He was having a spade and aruval in hand. At that
time, the accused came there and questioned how he could cut the trees, and
following the same, there was a wordy duel. Immediately, the accused
snatched the aruval and cut him on the neck and shoulder indiscriminately.
PW-1 on seeing this, raised alarm, and immediately, the accused fled away
from the place of occurrence. The said Alagu Ambalam met his
instantaneous death. PW-1 proceeded to the Police Station, where, the sub-
Inspector of Police (PW-11), was present. PW-1 gave a report (Ex.P1), on
the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.81/2003
under Section 302 IPC. The first information report, Ex.P-12, along with
Ex.P1 was despatched to the Magistrates' Court.
The Inspector of Police (PW-12), on receipt of the copy of the FIR,
took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the
presence of witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-4, and a
rough sketch, Ex.P-13. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of
Alagu Ambalam in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and
prepared an inquest report, Ex.P-14. The dead body was sent to the
Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P-2, for the purpose of
autopsy.
The Assistant Surgeon (PW-6), attached to the Government Hospital,
Melur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Alagu Ambalam and found 7 cut injuries. The doctor gave a post-
mortem certificate, Ex.P-3, with her opinion that the deceased would appear
to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to major vessels.
Pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the
accused on 27.05.2003. He volunteered to give a confessional statement,
which was recorded by the Investigator. The admissible part of the
confession was marked as Ex. P-6, pursuant to which he produced M.O.-1,
aruval and M.O.-4, Shirt, which have been recovered under a mahazar,
Ex.P-7. The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects
recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and M.Os.
l and 4, recovered from the accused, were subjected to chemical analysis by
the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in two reports namely
Ex.P-10, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P-11, the Serologist's report.
On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
Charges were framed. The accused pleaded innocence.
Twelve witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.
The accused, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') submitted that he has been falsely
implicated and in any event, there was a wordy duel before the occurrence
in which the appellant had purportedly snatched the weapon from the hands
of the deceased and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has no application. The
Trial Court did not accept the plea and placing reliance on the evidence of
the eye-witnesses, PWs-l and 2, recorded the conviction and sentence, as
noted above.;