KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, made in S.C.No.242 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Arumuga Pandaram. He was a resident of North Street, Subramaniapuram. The accused was also residing in the same street. Prior to the occurrence, on an occasion, the deceased outraged the modesty of one Muthupechi, the sister of the accused. When she raised alarm, the deceased left the place. It came to the knowledge of the accused. Thereafter, there was often quarrel. (b) On the date of occurrence that was on 22.5.2008, at about 2.00 P.M., when the accused and the deceased faced each other, there arose a quarrel. P.Ws.5 and 6 intervened, and they were pacified. After 15 minutes, when the deceased was going outside, the appellant/accused came with an aruval and attacked him on different parts of the body, and as a result of the same, the deceased fell down dead. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. (c) P.W.1 and others proceeded the respondent police station where P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, was present. P.W.1 gave a complaint at about 3.15 P.M., on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.144 of 2008 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court. (d) On the same day at about 5.30 P.M., the Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to Tirunelveli Government Hospital, where he met the appellant/accused and also recorded his statement on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.145/2008 under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P13, was sent to the Court. (e) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P4, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P14. Then he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Arumuga Pandaram in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P15. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. (f) On a requisition, P.W.2, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arumuga Pandaram and has given a postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs. (g) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested at about 2.00 P.M. on 26.5.2008, in the presence of witnesses. He gave a confessional statement which was recorded. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. Accordingly, they were subjected to, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P8, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P9, the serologist's report. (h) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and on completion of the same, filed the final report.

(3.) The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 7 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. One witness was examined and one document was marked as Ex.D1 on the side of the defence. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, made scrutiny of the materials, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.