M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C. No.63 of 2008, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus: (i) P.W.1 was living with his deceased father in Nedungal. P.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. THEy were all residents of the same village. THE accused/appellant also belongs to the same village. THEy got lands adjacent to each other and there was conflict in the past. (ii) On the date of occurrence i.e. on 1.3.2004 in the morning hours, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and also the accused and thereafter, on the evening hours also at about 6.00 p.m., when P.Ws.1 to 4 were doing agricultural operation along with the deceased, the accused came over there and there was a wordy altercation and immediately, the accused entered into the house, take M.O.4 spade and attacked the deceased on his neck, as a result of which, he died on the spot. (iii) P.W.1 went to the respondent-police and gave complaint Ex.P1. On the strength of the same, P.W.7 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.186 of 2004 for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and despatched the Express First Information Report Ex.P8 to the Court. On receipt of copy of First Information Report, P.W.9 Inspector of Police proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P9. THEreafter, P.W.9 conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P10. (iv) P.W.9 also recovered M.O.2 blood stained earth, ordinary earth M.O.1 from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P3 THEreafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem through requisition. P.W.6 Doctor attached to the Government Hospital conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P7 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock an hemorrhage and due to the injury in vital organ. (v) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 2.3.2004 in the evening at about 4 p.m. and the accused gave confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P4. THE accused also produced M.O.4 spade and the same was also recovered in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P5 and thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses viz. P.Ws.1 to 10 and relied on 11 documents viz. Ex.P1 to P11 and also relied on M.Os.1 to 6. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinizing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Sections 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant.
(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. on 1.3.2004. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 4. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the son P.W.3 is the wife and P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. Apart from this, P.W.2 is shown as friend of P.W.1. When the Court was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and their evidence was not useful to the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge should not have believed the evidence of P.W.1 for the reason that P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and apart from that, P.W.1 has categorically claimed that he went to the police station and made a report at about 10 p.m. When the occurrence had taken place at 6 p.m. and the police station situated 6 k.m. away from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel further added that P.W.5 Village Administrative Officer has candidly deposed that he phoned over to the police station regarding the occurrence and after he went to the place of occurrence, he found the police came to the scene of occurrence. All would clearly indicate that the first information given by P.W.5 Village Administrative Officer to the police Officers has been thoroughly suppressed. Ex.P1, which was given by P.W.1 could not have been the first information report.;