ALAGUMALAI Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUTHANGAL, M PUDUPATTI POLICE STATION, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, CRIME NO 65/1996

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in S.C.No.4/1997, is the appellant in this appeal. There were two more accused arrayed as A2 and A3 tried in the very same sessions case for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. However they were found guilty only for the offence punishable under section 324 I.P.C., for which offence each one of them stands sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence. It is brought to our notice that A2 and A3 have paid the fine amount and they have not filed any appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is as follows:

(3.) P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police Station. He would state that on receipt of the information at 1.00 a.m on 28.06.1996 he reached the Government hospital at Sivakasi and recorded Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. He also recovered M.O.1 from P.W.1. He came back to the police station and registered Ex.P.1 in Crime No.65/1996 for offences punishable under sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.17 is the printed first information report. He sent the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. He would state that at 3.00 a.m on 28.06.1996 he received information over telephone about the crime; reached the police station at Pudupatti; collected the material records; then proceeded to the scene at 4.30 a.m and prepared Ex.P.2/observation mahazar and Ex.P.18/rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. At 6.30 a.m he went to the mortuary in the Government hospital at Sivakasi and conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P.19 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others and recorded their statements. After inquest he routed a requisition through a police constable to the Gvoernment hospital for conducting post mortem. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who did post mortem on receipt of Ex.P.7/requisition in regard thereto at 9.20 a.m on 28.06.1996. During post mortem he found various symptoms as found noted in Ex.P.10/post mortem report. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to head and chest about 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy. As Ex.P.10 is in English and it forms part of the records, we do not propose to restate the symptoms noted therein once again in this judgement to save time. The Doctor is of the opinion that by the use of M.O.2 once, the two injuries found on the head of the deceased are possible. He would state that if the injured falls down after attack, there is a possibility of temporal bone and ribs getting fractured.