Madras High Court
Somu Thevar vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2007
Bench: M.Chockalingam, G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/02/2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Crl.A.(MD) No.1926 of 2003
Somu Thevar .. Appellant
vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
Vasudevanallur Police Station,
Crime No.324/2002. .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the Judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 3.11.2003 in S.C.No.121 of 2003 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
!For appellant : M/s.M.M.E.Philips
(Legal Aid Counsel)
^For respondent : Mr. P.N.Pandidurai
Addl.Public Prosecutor
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) The sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty in S.C.No.121 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment, has challenged the judgment dated 3.11.2003 in this appeal.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus:
(a) The deceased Velliammal was the wife of the accused/appellant. PW.1 is the son. PW.6 is the daughter in law and the wife of another son, Thirumeni.
The accused had 9 acres of land. There was an amicable partition in which PW.1 was given 3 acres, another son was given 3 acres while the accused retained 3 acres. The accused was cultivating the land by leasing it to a third party. The deceased Velliammal had 3/4th acre of land at Irattaipulikadu and she was cultivating the land. Both the sons were living separately. A quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased just four months prior to the date of occurrence and pursuant to the quarrel she left her husband and she was actually residing with PW.1. On 26.12.2002 at about 10.00 a.m., she went over to the field and when she was doing some agricultural operations, PW.2, PW.3, and PW.4 were also doing agricultural operations nearby her field. At that time, a distressing call of the deceased was heard and who were all nearby the field rushed to the scene of occurrence and they found that the deceased had been stamped, fisted and attacked by her husband with a stick. As soon as the witnesses gathered there, the accused/appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. The deceased Velliammal told the witnesses PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 that her husband had attacked her with a stick. PW.1 was informed about the occurrence and he took the deceased to the Vasudevanallur Police Station.
(b) PW.9, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to this Police Station, recorded a statement from PW.1 as the deceased Velliammal was unconscious. The statement of PW.1 was marked as Ex.P.1 on the basis of which, a case came to be registered in crime No.324/2002 under Section 294(B), 323, 325, 506(i) IPC. The printed F.I.R is Ex.P.8 and the same was despatched to the concerned Court. Thereafter, the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Sivagiri for taking treatment but despite the same she died.
(c) PW.9 the Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation and he went to the spot, he made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses PW.5 and one Govindan and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 and a Rough Sketch Ex.P.9 in the presence of the said witnesses. On receipt of death intimation of the deceased, Velliammal, which is Ex.P.10, the case already registered under Sections 294(B), 323, 325, 506(i) IPC was altered into one of Section 302 IPC by PW.9. Ex.P.11 is the altered Express Report, which was sent to Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.
(d) On 26.12.2002, on receipt of copy of Ex.P.11, PW.14, the Inspector of Police, attached to the Sivagiri Police Station, went to the Government Hospital, Sivagiri at about 5.00 p.m., and he made arrangements for taking photographs through PW.10, photographer. Photographs were marked as M.O.4 (series). Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report, Ex.P.18. He sent a requisition for conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Velliammal, which is Ex.P.6.
(e) PW.8, Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Sivagiri has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, Velliammal on 27.12.2002 at about 10.45 a.m. and he found injuries. Ex.P.7 is the Post-mortem Certificate wherein the Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital structure like lung.
(f) On 27.11.2002 at about 6.30 a.m. on the "Vilakku Road", the accused was arrested in the presence of the V.A.O., PW.7. The accused voluntarily gave confessional statement and the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the same, he produced MO.3 Stick and the same was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of mahazar witnesses.
(f) Thereafter, PW.15, the Inspector of Police attached to Vasudevanallur Police Station took up further investigation. On 6.1.2003, MO.1 Saree and MO.2 Aluminium vessel were sent along with requisition Ex.P.14 to the Court concerned to send them for chemical analysis. Ex.P.16 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P.17 is the Serological Report. On 27.1.2003, he examined PW.8, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. Apart from the post-mortem Doctor, he examined some other witnesses. On 3.2.2003, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for the offence of murder.
3. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, marked 18 Exhibits and also 4 MOs.
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined.
5. On completion of the trail, the Court heard the arguments advanced on the side of the defence as well as the prosecution and found the accused guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded him life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
6. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, PW.1 was not an eye witness. He narrated the entire episode said by the alleged eye witnesses and he had not seen the occurrence. According to the prosecution, PW.2, PW.3 and PW4 were the eyewitnesses. They have given a parrot like story and had they really seen the occurrence, they would speak the truth. Even from their evidence, it would be quite clear that the accused/appellant was not there at the place of occurrence but, they saw only the deceased at the place of occurrence. Apart from this, from the evidence of PW.6, the daughter-in-law, it would be quite clear that the accused/appellant was suffering from paralytic stroke and as such, the accused could not have killed the deceased at all with a stick or kicked or stamped the deceased at all. As such, the prosecution version has got to be disbelieved.
7. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the alleged confessional statement by the accused and the recovery of MO.3 stick were nothing but subsequent introductions to strengthen the prosecution case and this has got to be rejected and thus the entire evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution were thoroughly unacceptable and the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Added further the learned counsel that even assuming that the act of the accused has been proved, in the instant case, the accused was actually 75 years old when the occurrence had taken place and that he was suffering from paralytically stroke, and under the circumstances, he could not have attacked the deceased and caused her death.
9. Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made.
10. It is not in controversy that one Vellaiammal died due to homicidal violence. In the instant case, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case, apart from the other witnesses, has examined the Doctor P.W.8, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he has also issued post- mortem certificate Ex.P.7 stating that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital structure like lung and the fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any stage of proceedings and it has got to be necessarily recorded so.
11. In order to establish the fact that the deceased was killed with a stick by the accused, the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, who are PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4. All these three witnesses have categorically narrated the occurrence that they were working nearby the field at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.12.2002, at the time of occurrence, and they heard a distressing call of the deceased and actually the accused was attacking her with a stick and they rushed to the spot immediately. This makes it quite clear that the occurrence has taken place within a short distance and that it was a open field and when they rushed to the place of occurrence, the accused sped away from there with the weapon of crime and under the circumstances, their evidence has got to be accepted for the two reasons, firstly, they are related to the deceased and also equally related to the accused and secondly, no other reason or circumstance is brought to the notice of the Court that anybody else could have committed the offence of murder. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was correct in accepting the evidence on the side of the prosecution. Apart from that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution stood fully corroborated the medical evidence, through the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.7 and also the recovery of stick MO.3 by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of the witnesses.
12. Yet another circumstance is the oral dying declaration of the deceased to PWs.2 to 4 and immediately, PW.1 was informed of the occurrence. PW.1, immediately, took the deceased to the police station concerned and gave his statement, which was marked as Ex.P.1. Under the circumstances, all these were taken into consideration by the trial Court and rightly came to the conclusion that it was the accused who committed the offence of murder.
13. Coming to the question as to the nature of the act of the accused, in the instant case, there were quarrels between the spouses four months prior to the occurrence and under the circumstances, she left her matrimonial home and she was living with her son PW.1 and on the date of occurrence, the accused proceeded to the field and attacked the deceased with a stick forcibly which pierced into the body of the deceased. The Post-mortem Certificate would reveal that a few of the ribs were broken. Injury No.2 is very clear to that effect. The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was suffering from a paralytical stroke cannot be a reason to be accepted since he actually went all along to the field and attacked the deceased with full force with a stick when he was actually 75 years old. Under the circumstances, the act of the accused killing his wife at that age cannot be stated to be humane.
14. At this juncture, the Court is of the considered opinion that judgment of the trial court has got to be sustained both factually and legally and accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is sustained. The Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
asvm To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Crime No.324/2002.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.