Janarthanam, J. - (1.) THE appellant was accused in S. C. No. 274 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.
(2.) ON trial, he was found guilty under Sec. 302, I. P. C. , convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. Brief facts are: (a) The scene village Nagaram is situate within the jurisdiction limits of Puliyankudi Police Station. Karuppasami Nadar (since deceased) and the accused are brothers. They hailed from the scene village. On shanmughavelu, is their stepbrother. The ancestral properties, it is said, were partitioned among them. The landed properties belonging to the family are situate one and half miles away on the south of the village. In the lands, there is a pumpset attached to the well. (b) The deceased in his lands cultivated crops like tomato, brinjal and certain other crops. There were also standing trees in his lands such as jackfruit tree, palmyrah and what not. (c) P. W. 1, is the wife of the deceased. Unfortunately, the spouses had no issue at all. Consequently, they decided to adopt a child of their own. P. W. 1, it is said, had a sister at Tirumalapuram. Her sister had a daughter by name Suriyakala. The spouses decided to adopt the said Suriyakala and consequently, they adopted her and brought up her in their home. After the said Suriyakala came of age, she was given in marriage. The spouses also settled certain lands on her besides giving her jewels by way of presentation at the time of her marriage. The accused developed some sort of an ill feeling towards his brother, the deceased as a consequence of his adopting the said suriyakala and settling certain properties on her, besides giving jewels by way of presentation on the eve of her marriage. (d) A week prior to the occurrence which event happened on 17. 4. 1986, it appears the deceased sold some 20 palmyrah trees to a merchant belonging to Chinthamani. Some two days prior to the occurrence, the said merchant cut some of the palmyrah trees. This act of the deceased in squandering his properties was not at all to the liking of the accused-his-brother. (e) On 10. 12. 1984 at about 9. 00 a. m. the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other in a public street at Sankarankoil, causing annoyance to the neighbours and consequently, a case against the accused under sec. 75 of the City Police Act had been registered by P. W. 8 the then Sub inspector of Police, in Crime No. 552 of 1984 on the file of the Sankaran Koil police Station. Ex. P-14 is the First Information Report. After completion of investigation, a final report under Sec. 173 (2), Crl. P. C. had been filed, which has taken on file as C. C. No. 1606 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second class Magistrate, Sankarankoil. (f) P. W. 2 is the Nattamai of the scene village. It appears that the accused complained to him as respects his brother squandering his properties and if his brother, the deceased did so any further, it was likely that he has to face necessary consequences for his action. P. W. 2 appeared to have told the accused it was none of his business to feel aggrieved about the deceased squandering his properties. The accused, not having been satisfied with the reply emanating from P. W. 2, went away from there. (g) On the night of the day of occurrence at about 10. 00 or 10. 15 p. m. , the deceased went to the fields in his cycle M. O. I for the purpose of irrigating the tomato and other crops he had raised in his fields. While the deceased was going to his fields, he was seen by P. W. 3. at about 10. 15 (10. 15) p. m. who by then went for answering the calls of nature. (h) It appears that while the deceased was irrigating his fields, the accused appeared to have gone through and about 11. 15 p. m. , there arose some sort of an altercation between the accused and the deceased. Some wordy altercation revolved on the question of the deceased selling the palmyrah trees. This sort of a quarrel between the brothers, viz. , accused and the deceased was stated to have been witnessed by P. W. 4. P. W. 4. having been accustomed to such a quarrel between them, did not at all take it seriously and consequently, he went away from the scene, (i) The deceased, who went to the fields for the purpose of irrigation during night hours on the day of occurrence, did not at all return home even after the day dawned. P. W. 1, his wife feeling suspicious and getting worried about her husband- the deceased, went to the fields and found, to her dismay, her husband- the deceased was lying dead there. She found the fields were irrigated. The cycle M. O. 1, was found parked near the jackfruit tree. The spade M. O. 2 the deceased had for the purpose of irrigating the fields was not at all available there. M. O. 3 lungi worn by the deceased was found hanging on the door of the pump set shed. The deceased was found to be wearing then banian M. O. 4 and under wear M. O. 5 alone. The wrist watch M. O. 6 he was sporting in his hand was available intact. She not knowing what to do, sent word to her sister at Tirumalapuram. (j) At about 4. 00 p. m. her sister' ; s son one Selvam came to the fields where the body was lying. P. W. 1 appeared to have complained to him that her husband the deceased had been done to death by the accused out of jealously. thereafter, P. W. 1 along with the said Selvam made a march to Puliyankudi police Station for lodging an information. (k) P. W. 9 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, puliyankudi Police Station, while he was in charge of the Police Station, at about 5. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 along with Selvam appeared before him and lodged an information Ex. P-1 as respects the occurrence. On the strength of Ex. P-1, P. W. 9 in turn, registered a case in Crime No. 82 of 1986 as death under suspicious circumstances. Ex. P-15. is the printed first information report. Exs. P-1 and p-15 had been despatched by him at 6. 30 p. m. to the Judicial Second Class magistrate, Sankarankoil, through constable P. W. 10. To P. W. 10 he also handed over express copies of the reports with a direction to hand over them to the concerned officials. P. W. 10 in turn, complied with the mandate of P. W. 9. (1) P. W. 12 was the then Inspector of Police. At about 6. 30 p. m. he received the express copy of the first information report and immediately he took up further investigation in this case. He immediately rushed and reached the scene at 7. 00 p. m. He inspected the scene with the aid of a petromax light in the presence of P. W. 5 and prepared Ex. P-2. observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch of the scene Ex. P-16. At 7. 45 p. m. he seized M. O. 1, cycle and M. O. 3. lungi under Ex. P-3 mahazar. Exs. P-2 and P-3 were attested by P. W. 5. Between 8. 00 and 11. 30 p. m. he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex. P-17 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P. Ws. l to 4. After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of the deceased to the constable P. W. 11 along with Ex. P-6. requisition for the purpose of autopsy. He searched for the accused and he was absconding. (m) P. W. 6 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Sankarankoil. On receipt of Ex. P-6 requisition, he held autopsy over the body of the deceased at 11. 30 a. m. on 19. 4. 1986. Ex. P-7 is the postmortem certificate he issued. His final opinion is getting reflected in Ex. P-8. and according to him, the deceased could have died due head injuries (fractures in the skull), He would further opine that the deceased would have met his end at 11. 30 p. m. on 17. 4. 1986. During the course of autopsy, P. W. 6. Doctor appeared to have preserved the viscera on a requisition emerging from p. W. 12. (n) After the autopsy was over, the constable P. W. 1, seized from the body M. O. 4 Banian, M. O. 5 underwear, M. O. 6 wrist watch and M. O. 7 waistcord and handed over them at the Police Station. (o) On 19. 6. 1986 P. W. 12 examined P. W. 6 and after his examination he altered the case into one under Sec. 302, I. P. C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Ex. P-18. is the express report sent to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil. (p) On 22. 4. 1986 at about 6. 15 p. m. , he arrested the accused, on credible information, at the junction of Sankarankoil road and duraisamipuram Veeriruppu in the presence P. W. 5. On interrogation the accused gave a voluntary confession statement under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The admissible portion of the statement is Ex. P-4. Pursuant to the confession statement the accused took out and produced M. O. 2 spade from the south west of plantain field. The time was then 8. 00 p. m. M. O. 2 had been seized under Ex. P-5 mahazar. Exs. P-4 and P-5 were attested by P. W. 5. P. W. 12 brought the accused to the Police Station and the time was then 9. 30 p. m. the next day he sent the accused to court for remand. He also examined P. Ws. 9 to 11. (q) On 5. 5. 1986 P. W. 12 sent Ex. P-9 requisition to the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil for sending the viscera as well as the incriminating material objects seized, to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. (r) P. W. 7 was the then Head clerk attested to Judicial second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil. On receipt of Ex. P-9 requisition pursuant to the direction of the learned Magistrate, the incriminating material objects were separately packed sealed and then sent to the Chemical Examiner, besides the viscera for the purpose of examination, under the original of ex. P-10, office copy of the letter. Exs. P-11 and P-12 are the reports of the chemical Examiner and Serologist. Ex. P-13 is the report of the Chemical examiner relatable to the viscera and as per the report, no poison had been detected in the viscera articles. (s) P. W. 12, after completion of investigation, laid the final report under Sec. 173 (2), Crl. P. C, before the Judicial Second Class magistrate, Sankarankoil on 22. 5. 1986 against the accused for an alleged offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C. On committal, learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli division, Tirunelveli framed a charge against the accused under Sec. 302, I. P. C. The accused when questioned as respects the charge so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried.
(3.) IN proof of the charge so framed, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 12 filed Exs. P-1 to P-12 and marked M. Os. 1 to 4. The accused when questioned under Sec. 313, Crl. P. C, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He however, did not examine any witness on his behalf. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed, and after hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, however, rendered the verdict as above. ;