Madras High Court
Ravi vs State By on 18 April, 2006
Author: P.D.Dinakaran
Bench: P.D.Dinakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18/04/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU Criminal Appeal No.262 of 1997 Ravi ... Appellant vs. State by: Sub Inspector of Police, Narikkudi Police Station, Aruppukottai, Cr.No.123/93 Kamarajar District. ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur, dated 05.02.1997 in Sessions Case No.131 of 1996. !For Appellant ... Mrs.B.Asha for Mrs.Adline Stella Bellie ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Public Prosecutor. :JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) This appeal by the first accused arises out of the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur dated 5.2.1997 made in Sessions Case No.131 of 1996 in and by which the trial Judge convicted the first accused for the offences under sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 I.P.C.
2. Totally, there were two accused in the case. The charge against them is that on 27.07.1993 at about 11.00 p.m., at Kandukondan Manickam village, on the pial of the house of P.W.1, when Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased, Accused No.1 with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, stabbed him on his face and chest with a knife (M.O.1) and the deceased succumbed to the injuries, which act is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; in the course of the same transaction, Accused No.2 caught hold the deceased to facilitate Accused No.1 to cause the death of the deceased, which act is punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Accused No.1 attempted to murder P.W.1 Vellaiammal and P.W.3 Subbiah and caused injuries on them, which act is punishable under Section 307 I.P.C (two counts).
3. As Accused No.2 died on 17.01.2001, this Court, by judgment dated 17.03.2006, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.310 of 1997 filed by him as abated. 4.1. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of the witnesses examined by them, is as follows:
(a) P.W.4 Rakku is the mother of the deceased viz., Chandran. P.W.1 Vellaiammal and P.W.3 Subbiah are her parents and they are residing at Kandukondan village. P.W.2 Chandra @ Chandrayi is younger daughter of P.W.4, who is residing with her grand parents.
(b) The deceased was doing sugarcane juice business at Anna bus stand, Madurai, and his family members were assisting him. Accused No.1 was also doing the sugarcane juice business and residing opposite to the house of P.W.1. The eldest daughter of P.W.4 viz., Seenivasuki was given in marriage to Accused No.2, a friend of Accused No.1. After the marriage, Accused No.2 along with his wife was residing at Madurai. P.W.4, the deceased and her younger son Vettriveeran were also residing with them at Madurai.
(c) As Accused No.2 used to utter filthy words on P.W.4, the deceased told Accused No.2 that if he continued to behave like this, they would leave him. As there was no change in the behaviour of Accused No.2, P.W.4 along with her sons came out of his house and were residing separately at Madurai.
(d) When P.W.4 was alone in the house, Accused No.2 attempted to outrage her modesty. P.W.4 informed about the character of Accused No.2 to the deceased. Enraged at this, the deceased stabbed accused No.2 and in this regard, a case was registered on the complaint given by Accused No.2 on 08.06.1993 by P.W.8 Head Constable in Crime No.589 of 1993 of Thallakulam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P6 is the first information report and the case was pending.
(e) Five days thereafter, Accused No.2 beat the deceased at Anna bus stand and the deceased lodged a complaint against Accused No.2 and the said case is also pending.
(f) Accused No.2 informed the Inspector, who investigated the case registered on the complaint of the deceased, that he should not be made responsible, if anyone murdered the deceased within ten days. Fearing on the statement of Accused No.2, P.W.4 sent the deceased to Kandukondan village, where P.Ws.1 and 3 were residing.
(g) On the date of occurrence i.e. 27.07.1993, when P.W.1 and her mother were sleeping in front of the house, P.W.2 along with her brother Karnan were sleeping inside the house, and the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the house. P.W.3 went outside for a panchayat. At about 11.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 came there and while Accused No.2 was catching hold the deceased, Accused No.1 stabbed him on his chest and neck with a soori knife (M.O.1). At that time, P.W.1 screamed and caught hold Accused No.1 and Accused No.1, by using the same weapon, cut her left side nose and dragged the knife upto her right cheek. On hearing the noise, P.W.3 and other panchayat people came to the scene of occurrence. Accused No.1 also cut P.W.3 on his neck. Both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with the weapon. P.W.2 also witnessed the said occurrence.
(h) P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the police station and gave statement Ex.P-1. P.W.7 is the Head Constable, who recorded Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 1.00 a.m. on 28.07.1993. As the left thumb of P.W.1 was injured, P.W.7 obtained her right thumb impression. He registered a case in Crime No.123 of 1993 and prepared Ex.P5, first information report and sent P.Ws.1 and 3 to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai for treatment. He sent the FIR to the jurisdictional Court as well as to the higher officials.
(i) P.W.11 is the Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 at 2.25 a.m. on 28.07.1993. P.W.11 found a cut injury (16 x 3 x 2 cm) across the nose, from 1"
below the left eye to right nostril upto the border of the mandible across the nose on the right side starting from nasal cavity. Right upper pre-molar was found broken and right side teeth were shaky. He issued Ex.P9, the accident register extract wherein it is opined that the injury was grievous in nature.
(j) Based on Ex.P5 FIR, P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation of the case on 28.07.1993. He visited the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He also drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-11 inquest report.
He recovered M.O.4, bloodstained mat, M.O.5, bloodstained cement mortar, M.O.6 sample cement mortar and M.O.7 saree under Ex.P-4 mahazar, in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He gave a requisition for conducting postmortem on the dead body.
(k) P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Chandran at 1.30 p.m. on 28.07.1993. He found the following ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
1. A cut injury about 8cm x 3cm x 2cm is seen over the left side of cheek extending from the angle of the mouth to left side of the neck 2" below the left ear. Cut end of the muscles are seen over the left end of the injury the depth is about + cm.
2. A stab injury about 3cm x 1+cm x 3cm is seen over the left side of the chest just below the medial end of the clavicle. The injury is transverse in direction.
On Exploration of the wound No.2, the pulmonary artery is cut just below the bifurcation of right and left branches of the pulmonary artery anteriorly. Blood clots are seen at the side of the injury over the pulmonary artery. The injury over the artery is 7mm x 5mm.
The postmortem doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to great vessels (pulmonary artery) about 13 to 15 hours prior to autopsy. Ex.P-7 is the postmortem certificate.
(l) P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated P.W.3 at 1.30 a.m. on 29.7.1993 and found a linear abrasion of 6 cm in length with scab at left side of neck. He issued Ex.P8 wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature.
(m) P.W.12, in continuation of the investigation, at 9.30 p.m. on 28.07.1993 recovered the personal apparels of the deceased, M.O.8, banian and M.O.9, lungi, produced by the constable.
(n) On 03.08.1993, P.W.12 arrested Accused No.1 at Thiruvalluvar bus stand, Madurai. When P.W.12 examined Accused No.1, he gave a voluntary confession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-12, pursuant to which, Accused No.2 was arrested at Anna bus stand and M.O.1 soori knife and M.O.10 torch light were recovered under Ex.P-13 mahazar attested by P.W.6 and another. He examined P.W.8 and recorded his statement. He sent the material objects with Ex.P14, requisition, to the Court to subject them to chemical analysis and the same were sent to the laboratory under Ex.P15, Court's letter. Exs.P16 and P.17 are Chemical Analyst's Report and Serologist's Report respectively. He examined the postmortem doctor and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report against the accused on 19.11.1993. 4.2. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12, marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 as well as M.Os.1 to 10, as referred to above.
5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false. The accused has not examined any witness or marked any document on his side.
6. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, found both the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated earlier. Hence, the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Accused No.1 contends that the evidence of ocular witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 is not cogent, clear and consistent and therefore, the conviction of Accused No.1 based on their evidence is not sustainable. It is her further contention that there is a doubt as to who actually gave Ex.P1 statement to the police since Ex.P1 is said to have been given by P.W.1 viz., "Vellaiammal" whereas at the end of the statement it is mentioned as right thumb impression of "Vellayeeammal". Learned counsel also raised a contention that there is no acceptable explanation on the part of the prosecution for getting the right thumb impression of the complainant being a lady.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws.1 to 3, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, clearly and cogently speak about the overt acts attributed to the accused persons and their evidence unerringly points out the guilt of the accused in murdering the deceased. Further, M.O.1 soori knife, which was recovered based on Ex.P-12, admissible portion of the voluntary confession statement given by Accused No.1, was found to have contained the same blood group and this part of evidence also connects the accused with the crime.
9. It is further contended that there is no doubt at all to hold who is the actual complainant because a perusal of the original Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that it is only Vellaiammal viz., P.W.1 who actually gave the complaint and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is without any basis. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that the prosecution has come out with acceptable evidence through P.W.7, Head Constable, for getting the right thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P-1, as there was bleeding injury on her left thumb.
10. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel on the either side and also perused the evidence on record.
11. In the context of the above submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.
12. The prosecution has proved their case that deceased Chandran died due to homicidal violence by examining P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and marking Ex.P-7, postmortem certificate. The defence is also not disputing the fact that Chandran died due to homicidal violence.
13. The motive for the occurrence as projected by the prosecution is that Accused No.2, who is the son-in-law of P.W.4 attempted to outrage her modesty on several occasions prior to the date of occurrence and this was informed by P.W.4 to the deceased viz., her son and the deceased questioned Accused No.2 and stabbed him with a knife and a case was pending against the deceased in respect of that occurrence. In retaliation, the Accused No.2 also beat the deceased and another criminal case was registered on the said incident. Accused No.2 informed the Inspector of Police, who investigated the case registered on the complaint of the deceased, that he should not be held responsible, if the deceased was murdered within ten days from the said incident. Therefore, there was enmity between the deceased and Accused No.2. This motive aspect of the case of the prosecution is well established by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that due to prior enmity, at 11.00 p.m. on 27.07.1993 when the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the house of P.W.1, Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased and Accused No.1 stabbed on the chest and neck of the deceased and when P.W.1, by raising alarm, caught hold of Accused No.1, Accused No.1 stabbed her on her left nose and dragged the knife upto the right cheek and on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, P.W.3, who was attending a village panchayat, rushed to the scene of occurrence and Accused No.1 also attacked him and thereafter both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. This part of the prosecution case is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in one voice. Nothing was suggested by the defence to demoralise their evidence to the occurrence. Their evidence is cogent, clear and trustworthy. Further, the medical evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor who conducted postmortem of the deceased coupled with Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate corroborates the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. Moreover, P.Ws.1 and 3 also sustained injuries in the course of same transaction which stands proved by their evidence as well as the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, the doctors who treated them.
15. On the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 is not the author of Ex.P1, we took pain to go through the original records and we find that it is only P.W.1 viz., Vellaiammal who had given the complaint and her right thumb impression alone was obtained in Ex.P1 and therefore, this contention of the counsel fails.
16. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant that there is no explanation for obtaining the right thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P1 is also without any merit in view of the explanation given by P.W.7, the Head Constable, who registered the case that when P.W.1 appeared before him and narrated the incident, he reduced it into writing and obtained her right thumb impression as there was a bleeding injury in the left thumb of P.W.1. This explanation given by P.W.7 appears to be convincing.
17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has established their case that Accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to murder the deceased attacked him when he was sleeping on the pial and when P.Ws.1 and 3 came to the rescue of the deceased, Accused No.1 attacked both of them with the same knife. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the just and correct conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who are responsible for the crime and we see no reason at all to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court.
18. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Accused No.1 is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. The bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant and send him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
ATR/gb Copies to
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Narikkudi Police Station.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.