R.Regupathi - (1.) THE appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.227 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, for offences under Sections 427, 341, 342, 302 read with 34 and 326 read with 34 IPC. THE learned trial Judge by judgment dated 25.6.2007, convicted and sentenced him as given below: TABLE Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court.
(2.) THE appellant was alleged to have committed the offence along with two other accused, namely, Thangavel and Vairan and since, pending trial, the other two accused died, the trial of the case proceeded against the present appellant. THE deceased accused Thangavel and the deceased accused Vairan will be referred to as DA-1 and DA-2 respectively for the sake of convenience. The case of the prosecution, as unveiled by the oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly stated as hereunder: (a) Some time prior to the date of occurrence, a buffalo belonging to DA-1 was found missing and for which, the deceased was suspected by the accused. However, few days subsequently, the buffalo came back on its own and since the deceased was suspected by the accused, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused, during which, the deceased was alleged to have abused the accused that he would kill them. Thereafter, there was a panchayat between the accused and the deceased. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence. (b) The further case is that on 14.12.92 at about 2.00 a.m., DA-1, having a torch light on the one hand and a koduval on the other hand, DA-2 armed with a spear and the appellant having a koduval and a torch light, came to the house of the deceased and knocked at the door of the house, where the deceased was sleeping. P.Ws.1 to 3, mother, father and brother of the deceased and P.Ws.5 and 6, neighbors were present at that time and witnessed the occurrence. Since the door was not opened, the appellant and DA-2 climbed the roof and with a spear fitted with a long bamboo stick, stabbed the deceased and unable to bear the injury, the deceased opened the door in order to escape, but DA-1 who was standing outside, caught hold of him and attacked him with the koduval. Thereafter, the hands of the deceased were tied and all the accused delivered indiscriminate cuts on all over the parts of the deceased in which, the appellant armed with koduval caused injuries on the face, neck and shoulder. At that time, when P.W.1, mother of the deceased, intervened, she was also attacked by the accused. The appellant also caused injury with the backside of the koduval on the back of her chest. (c) To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and other material objects, viz. M.Os.1 to 10. (d) P.W.1, mother of the deceased, in her evidence, stated that due to the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the buffalo belonging to DA-1 was found missing, the accused threatened the deceased with his life and on 14.12.92, the appellant armed with a koduval and a torch light, while DA-1 armed with an aruval and a torch light and DA-2 armed with a spear, came to the house of the deceased at 2.00 a.m. and knocked at the door. On hearing the noise, P.Ws.1 to 3 came out and saw the accused with the help of the streetlight and the light, which was burning in front of verandah. Since the deceased was afraid of the accused, he remained inside without opening the door. But, DA-1 directed the appellant and DA-2 to climb the roof, pursuant to which, both climbed the roof and DA-2 with the spear fitted with a long bamboo stick, stabbed the deceased and unable to bear the injury, the deceased came out opening the door. At that time, DA-1 assaulted the deceased with the aruval and caused injuries on his hand and thereafter, the hands of the deceased were tied and all the three accused delivered cuts repeatedly. In spite of the request made by her not to cut him, she was also assaulted by the accused. The deceased died instantaneously and she also became unconscious. After receiving information, the Village Administrative Officer came to the scene of occurrence and P.W.1 gave a complaint, Ex.P.1. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. (e) P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and both the eyewitnesses corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Though P.Ws.5 and 6, neighbours of the deceased, were examined as eyewitnesses, since they did not support the case of the prosecution, they have been treated as hostile. (f) P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, who speaks about the motive part of the prosecution, as referred earlier and about the panchayat convened, in which the deceased was directed to pay Rs.600/- as fine. He has stated that on receiving information, he came to the scene of occurrence, found the deceased lying dead with injuries and finding P.W.1 with injuries, he took her to the hospital. (g) P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, on receipt of information from his village menial at 6.30 a.m. on 15.12.92, reached the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. On enquiry with P.W.1, a compliant was given by her and he reduced the same into writing. P.W.1 affixed her thumb impression in Ex.P.1. Thereafter, P.W.7 accompanied by P.W.1, went to police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1, to P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.719 of 1992 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. P.W.11 prepared printed F.I.R. and dispatched the same to Court and copies to superior officers. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the printed F.I.R. (h) P.W.11 took up investigation on instructions from the Inspector of Police and reached the scene of occurrence at 10.15 a.m., prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, Exs.P.2 and P.9 respectively. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 11.15 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. Ex.P.10 is the inquest report. He sent requisition Ex.P.4 along with the dead body to the hospital through P.W.10 for conducting autopsy. He sent P.W.1 to the hospital with a police memo. He examined the witnesses present at the scene of occurrence, viz. P.Ws.1 to 7. He recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth, M.Os.1 and 2, blood-stained koduval - M.O.3, long bamboo stick - M.O.4, nylon rope - M.O.5, iron spear - M.O.9, broken tiles - M.O.10, blood-stained lungi - M.O.6, under Form 95 and dispatched the same to the Court. M.Os.7 and 8, the clothing's of the deceased, after they were produced by the constable, P.W.10, who was present at the time of post-mortem, were seized under Form 95 and sent to Court. The seizure mahazars, Exs.P.3 and P.7, were attested by P.W.7. The further investigation was, thereafter, handed over to P.W.12. (i) P.W.8, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 16.12.92 at 11.20 a.m. and found the following external injuries:- External injuries: 1. An incised injury over right side forehead of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms. 2. An incised injury of size 4 x 2 x 2 cms. Above right eyebrow. 3. An incised injury over right cheek of size 15 cm. X 3 cm. X 3 cm. extending from right earlobule upto right ala of Nose. 4. An incised injury over left side cheek of size 12 x 3 x 3 cms. extending from a point 5 cms below left ear lobule to middle of the upper lip of left side. Exposing oral cavity tongue and mandible. 5. An incised injury of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms. over submental region. 6. An incised injury over the front of the neck of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms. exposing great vessels and trachea. 7. An incised injury over right scapula of size 10 x 3 x 3 cms. exposing bones and muscles. 8. An incised injury of size 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over right shoulder. 9. An incised injury over right side of abdomen right of umbilicus of size 8 x 2 x 2 cms. with intestines protruding through the wound. 10. A contusion of size 5 x 5 cms. over left side thigh lower 1/3rd. 11. An incised injury 5 x 3 x 3 cms. over nape of neck. 12. An incised injury of size 2 x 2 x 1 cm. above 5 cms. above injury No.9. Ex.P.5 is the post-mortem certificate. The doctor has opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries sustained about 30 to 36 hours prior to autopsy. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the above said injuries could have been caused with weapons like M.Os.3 and 9. (j) P.W.9 is the doctor who examined P.W.1 on 15.12.92 at 5.35 p.m. and he noted the following injuries:- 1. A contusion reddish in colour in left forearm close to wrist 1" x 1 inch. 2. A contusion reddish in colour in the left forearm in the proximal 1/4 x 2 x 2 inches. 3. A contusion left scapular region 3 x 3 inches reddish. 4. A lacerated wound in left arm 1 x 1 x 1/2 inches covered with blood clot. 5. A lacerated wound in left infra scapular region 1" x 1 inch x 1/2 inch covered with blood clot. 6. A contusion in left knee reddish 3 x 3 inches. X-ray left fore arm " fracture X-ray knee left fracture patella The doctor issued Ex.P.6, the wound certificate, opining that injuries 2 and 6 are grievous and injuries 1, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature. P.W.9 has stated in his evidence that the above said injuries could have been caused with the backside of the weapon like M.O.3. (k) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up investigation from P.W.11 and after examination of P.W.10 and other medical witnesses and after the receipt of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5, on conclusion of investigation, filed the final report on 16.4.93 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 321, 427 r/w 341 IPC. (l) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused claimed innocence and pleaded not guilty. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on the side of defence. The learned trial Judge, on completion of evidence and on hearing the submissions of both sides, finding the appellant guilty for the offences charged, convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant is Govindasamy, but it has been mentioned as Govindaraj and hence, the occurrence having taken place during night time, there is all possibility of substitution of the appellant in the case by falsely implicating him; though the occurrence took place at 2.00 a.m., the Village Administrative Officer reached the scene of occurrence only at 6.30 a.m. and further it was reported to the police at 8.00 a.m. and there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R.; the medical evidence is not consistent with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses; the independent witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6 having turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is unreliable, since they are interested witnesses; the other accused having died before the trial, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.
(3.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though there is a contradiction in the name of the appellant, the name of the father of the appellant has been correctly mentioned; that it is only after receiving information through the village menial, P.W.7 reached the scene of occurrence and since the occurrence took place in the early morning, P.W.7 reached the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. and thereafter, he took P.W.1, who was also injured, along with him to the police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 and hence, there is no delay in recording the first information report. He further submits that the appellant and other accused are known to the witnesses, since they are living in the same village and the availability of street light and the light burning in the verandah had been spoken to by the witnesses and hence, there is no difficulty in identifying the accused. The motive put forth by the prosecution is also strong enough to prove the case against the accused and thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has well established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. We have perused the entire materials available on record and also heard the submissions of both sides. It is not in dispute that the deceased Chinnappan died due to homicidal violence. The evidence of P.W.8 and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5, issued by him, clearly show that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries and it is the evidence of P.W.8 that the said injuries could have been caused by weapons like, M.Os.3 and 9. Hence, there can be no difficulty in holding that the deceased died of homicidal violence.;