Madras High Court
Marudhapandiyan vs State, Inspector Of Police on 9 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ1594
JUDGMENT Arumugham, J.
1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur has filed this Criminal Appeal, against the conviction and Sentence passed on 20-3-1985, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 15-8-1982, at about 3.00 p.m., at Vennaputtur Harijan Street, he intentionally caused the death of one Chinniyan by cutting him with a sickle on his head and other parts of his body and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, as held out from the evidence of the 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documentary evidence relied on, is briefly as follows :- P.W. 1 Ravanammal is the first wife of the deceased Chinniyan and one Solaiammal is his second wife. P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased. P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased. All of them were living together in a house situate in the Harijan Street, Vennaputtur village, Bhapanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. The accused Marudhupandian was also living in the same street.
4. About twenty days prior to the occurrence, which took place on 15-8-1982, P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu, who is pangali of the deceased Chinniyan had been to a brick kiln, taking food to his younger brother. When he returned home during that night, he saw one Karunanithi seducing the farmer's wife by name Amsu. P.W. 5 caught Karunanithi red handed and made a shout. On hearing the shot, his junior paternal uncle Ganesan came there and both of them entangled Karunanithi physically. Thereafter, Karunanithi's brothers Thiyagarajan, Raja, Srinivasan and his junior paternal uncle Rajagopal came there and took him away saying that they would enquired the matter on the next morning. P.W. 5 made a complaint to the Panchayatdhars and asked them to enquire into the matter.
5. Subsequently, about one week prior to the occurrence, P.W. 5's father-in-law and brother-in-law beat one Sekar, who is the Junior paternal uncle's son of the accused, as he spoke ill of Amsu, the wife of P.W. 5. Thus, the said Sekar and Karunanithi got serious with the family of the deceased Chinniyan. They preferred a false complaint to the police against P.W. 4 Kalyani, the son of the deceased, and one Shanmugham, Karuppiah and Govindaraj. Since them, the accused Marudhupandiyan was inimical towards the deceased Chinniyan.
6. On 15-8-1982, at 9.00 a.m., the deceased, along with his two wives and three other woman folk, went to his filed situate behind his house and engaged in transplantation work. At that time he caught two rats from the ridges of his field and whereupon he asked his first wife, P.W. 1 Ravanammal, to go along with him to their home and prepare sauce. Accordingly, P.W. 1 and the deceased went home, P.W. 1 engaged in the kitchen work while the deceased was sleeping near the threshold of the backyard of their house. At about 3.00 p.m., when P.W. 1 went near the deceased to take water from the mud pot which was kept beside him, she noticed the accused entering their house through the western lane and through the backyard. There was a sickle in his hand. On seeing the accused moving fast and nearing her husband, P.W. 1 shouted at him asking as to why he was running like that. But, brushing aside the words, the accused started cutting the deceased with the sickle on his right forehead. The deceased twisted and cried 'Ye, Appa'. P.W. 1 also raised an alarm. The accused again cut the deceased on his forehead along with the head. The next two cuts fell on the chest and fingers of the deceased. On hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 1, P.W. 8 Dhanapalan, the son of the younger brother of the deceased who was coming to the house of the deceased through the front door, in order to tap today from the coconut trees behind the house, rushed into the house and saw the accused cutting the deceased. When P.W. 8 questioned the accused as to why he was cutting the deceased, the accused threatened him with the same fate, by showing the sickle, and stating so, the accused started running through the backyard and thereafter, ran towards West. P.W. 8 gave a chase to him by raising alarm.
7. P.W. 2 Karunanithi, resident of Thirukkargavoor, who had come to his father-in-law's house at Vennaputtur at that time was eating food on being served by his wife. On hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 8, he came out of the house and saw the accused running towards west, P.W. 8 chasing him by raising noise (Vernacular matter omitted.) when P.W. 2 and his wife attempted to intercept the accused, the accused wriggled out and ran towards west. P.W. 9 Munusami, who is also a resident of Harijan Street, on hearing the noise, came out of his house and saw the accused came running in the front with an aruval in his hand, being chased by P.Ws. 2, 8 and one Maharani, who asked P.W. 9 to catch the accused by saying that he was running after cutting Chinniyan. When P.W. 9 asked the accused to stop, the accused threatened him by showing the aruval. P.W. 9 got afraid and retreated. The accused ran through a lane leading to Vennar, towards north.
8. In the meanwhile P.W. 1 saw her husband who has sustained cut injuries bleeding profusely. She wiped out the blood from his body and feeded water to him. But, Chinniyan died. P.W. 4, Kalyani, the son of the deceased, who had been to Papanasam on the day of the occurrence, returned home by about 4.30 p.m. On that day. He heard about the occurrence and saw his father lying dead having sustained cut injuries. P.Ws. 2, 8 and 9 went to Kalanjeri and P.Ws. 8 told P.W. 3 Samba-Vaidyanathan about the occurrence and asked him to give a phone message to Ammapet Police. Thereupon, P.W. 3 went to the post office and informed the Ammapet Police through phone. The Police asked him to send some body to prefer a complaint. But, P.W. 3 replied that there was nobody to go over there and asked the police to go to the scene of occurrence. Then, they waited till 4.45 p.m. But the police did not arrive. P.W. 3 again phoned up to the Ammapet police by 4.45 p.m. At that time, P.W. 4 also arrived there. P.W. 4 asked P.W. 8 as to how the occurrence took place. P.W. 8 narrated the occurrence and P.W. 4 reduced the same into writing as per Ex. P-1. P.W. 4 asked P.W. 8 to go to Ammapet Police Station and prefer the complaint.
9. Thereafter, P.W. 3 contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Thanjavur, over phone who in turn promised to do the needful. Ex. P.-15 is the three telephone receipts issued to P.W. 3 for his phoning up to Ammapet Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur.
10. On 15-8-1982 at 6.00 p.m., P.W. 8 appeared before P.W. 12 Meenakshisundaram, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at Ammapet Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint to him. In the meanwhile P.W. 12 had also received phone message from Kalanjeri about the occurrence and was preparing to leave for the scene of occurrence. On receiving Ex. P-1, P.W. 12 registered a case in Cr. No. 146/82 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, prepared Express First Information Report Ex. P. 6 and sent Ex. P-6 along with Ex. P-1 and its copies to court and higher officials and the Inspector of Police. P.W. 14 Amalanthan, the then Inspector of Police, Papanasam circle, received the copy of Ex. P-6 at about 11.45 p.m. on 15-8-1982 and immediately proceeded to Vennaputtur village and reached the scene of occurrence and stayed there since it was night.
11. On 16-8-1982 at 6.30 a.m., P.W. 14 inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P-13 rough sketch. He also prepared observation mahazar Ex. P-2 at 6-45 a.m., He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 7.15 a.m. and 11-30 a.m. in the presence of panchyatdars and examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 and one Maharani, Ex. P-14 is the inquest report prepared by him. At 11.30 a.m. he entrusted the body of the deceased to P.W. 10 Kunju, Police Constable No. 1917, along with the requisition Ex. P-11 for post-mortem examination. He them recovered the blood stained earth M.O. 4 and sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex. P-3 mahazar, in the presence of P.W. 6 Paramasivam and one Samy Ayyah. He also examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 on that day.
12. On 16-8-1982 at 12.20 p.m. P.W. 13 Dr. Kuppuswamy, the then Medical Officer Government Hospital, Papanasam, received the requisitien Ex. P-11, and commenced post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased at 2.25 p.m., on that day. At that time, the body was cold and rigor mortis passed off in all the four limbs. The body was in charge of P.W. 10. On examination, P.W. 13 found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.
External injuries :-
1. An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm. and bone deep with cut in the bone over the left side of the forehead extending from the left eye-brow to hair line of the scalp situated vertically.
2. An abrasion of 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. over the middle of the forehead with surrounding contusion situated vertically.
3. An incised wound 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. exposing the fractured end of shaft of ulna over the back of middlethird of right forearm.
4. An incised wound of 4 cm. x 1 cm. and communicating with the thoracic cavity present over the right side of the front of chest 3 cm. below the medial end of right collar bone. The injury was horizontally situated. The lateral end of the wound was sharply angled and at the medial end of the wound, there was certain amount of raggedness present.
5. (a) An incised injury of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. over the palmar aspect of distal phalanx of left thumb.
(b) An incised injury of 2 cm. x 3/4 cm. exposing the dislocated metacarpo phalanged joint of the left index finger.
(c) An incised injury of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. exposing the tendonc present over the palmar aspect of the middle of proximal phalanx of middle finger of left hand.
(d) An incised wound of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. and exposing the tendons over the palmar aspect of middle phalanx of ring finger of left hand.
(e) An incised wound of 1 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. exposing the tendons of distal inter phalangeal of left little finger of left hand.
Internal Injuries :-
On dissection of injury No. 4, wound in the front of right side chest, 600 ml. of clotted blood present in thoracic cavity. There was a cut of 1 cm. in the arch of the arota. Heart :- all chambers empty. Stomach contained 250 gms. partially digested rice food. Mucosapale. Right lung was found shrunken. Bladder empty.
According to P.W. 13, all the above injuries were ante-mortem and these could have been caused by cutting with a sharp edged weapon like M.O. 1 aruval. All the injuries mentioned in injury No. 5 could have been caused by a single cut. Injury No. 5 could have been caused when the victim tried to ward off cuts with aruval and while warding off the cut made by the aruval, it could have passed through the head after cutting the forehead. Injury No. 4 with its corresponding internal injury is fatal in nature. Further, according to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him, about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Ex. P-12 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. After post-mortem examination was over, P.W. 10 removed M.O. 2 Dhoti and M.O. 3 waistcord from the body of the deceased and handed then over at the police station and the dead body to its relatives.
13. On 17-8-1982, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 5 and some others. On 25-8-1982 at 6-30 a.m. he arrested the accused near Ammapettai Railway station in the presence of P.W. 7 Kathayyan and one Selvaraj and examined him. At that time, the accused voluntarily gave a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-4, in which the accused undertook to point out and produce the aruval if taken. Accordingly he took P.Ws. 7 and 14 to Vennar river at Vannaputhur and from a pit near the bathing ghat, and produced the aruval M.O. 1 before P.W. 14 who recovered the same under mahazar Ex. P-5, attested by P.W. 7 and another. On the same day, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and others. On 9-9-1982, P.W. 14 sent Ex. P-7 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Papanasam to send the bloodstained articles for chemical analysis. Accordingly, P.W. 11 Ramanathan, Assistant, Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court Papanasam packed the said articles separately, sealed them and sent them to the Chemical Examiner along with the letter of the Magistrate, the office copy of which is Ex. P-8. Ex. P-9 is the report of the Chemical Examiner, Madras which shows that M.Os. 2, 3 and 4 were stained with blood. Ex. P-10 is the report of the State Serologist which shows that the above articles were stained with human blood and that the result of the rest was inconclusive. P.W. 14 was by then transferred and his successor Ganesan completed the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused on 20-1-1984.
14. When the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence against him, he denied the offence and stated that he is the pangali of both parties, that he did not given any statement to the Police or produce any aruval and that he is innocent. He did not examine any witness on his behalf.
15. On assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, the statement of the accused and the rival contentions, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for his life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
16. We have heard the arguments of Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, though several grounds were raised in the memorandum of appeal, confined his arguments on the following main points only :-
(a) that the prosecution has deliberately failed to establish the direct motive for the appellant/accused to get himself involved in the crime of committing the murder of the deceased;
(b) that the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 8 being much interested with the deceased cannot be relied on for the simple reason that they do not inspire any confidence or genuineness with the subsequent conduct of P.W. 1 that she waited for her son to prefer any complaint and that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 9 were also only a belief streamlined by the prosecution;
(c) that the recovery of M.O. 1 on the alleged confessional statement of the appellant renders by itself to be thrown out and does not lend any support to the prosecution case as M.O. 1 does not bear any blood stain and thereby falsifies the prosecution theory; and
(d) that the complaint Ex. P-1, said to have been given by P.W. 8 to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 12, is inadmissible in evidence as it was hit by the bar provided under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the phone message given by P.W. 3 to the Ammapet Police Station prior to the lodging of Ex. P-1 complaint would all the way amount to be a First Information Report in this case and that, therefore, Ex. P-1 is directly hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. Controverting every one of the said contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Shanmughavelayutham submitted that there was no infirmity or unreasonableness inherent with the findings given by the learned trial Judge as was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and that therefore, he persuaded us to sustain the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant herein.
18. In the light of the above rival contentions, the only point that has arisen for consideration is whether the prosecution had established the guilt and the complicity of the accused/appellant in committing the murder of the deceased at about 3-00 p.m. on 15-8-1982, beyond any reasonable doubt as required by law ?
19. At the outset, we may observe that the topography of the scene of occurrence with its existing surrounding features as shown in Ex. P-2, the observation mahazar prepared by P.W. 14 on the morning of 16-8-1982, in the presence of P.W. 6 and another, as attested by them; the rough sketch Ex. P-13 prepared by him with regard to the scene of occurrence; the inquest report prepared by the investigating officer at the place of occurrence on the basis of the inquest conducted by him, marked as Ex. P-14, coupled with the recovery of M.Os. 4 and 5, bloodstained earth and sample earth respectively, from the scene of occurrence under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-3, attested by P.W. 6 and another, along with the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 clinchs the fact that the deceased Chinniyan had been attacked by the assailant, whoever it may be, within his house, as relied on by the prosecution.
20. Bestowing our attention to the evidence of the doctor P.W. 13 Kuppuswamy, the medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Papanasam, on the basis of the Post-mortem Certificate Ex. P-12 issued by him regarding the injuries found on the body of the deceased Chinniyan during autopsy conducted by him on 16-8-1982 at 2.40 p.m., we have to observe that the evidence given by this witness fully corroborates and lends ample support to the one and the only conclusion that the deceased Chinniyan was done to death by perpetrating the homicidal violence upon him with a sharp edged weapon like M.O. 1 aruval, in the manner and the place as alleged by the prosecution. Pertinent at this stage for us to refer once again to the injuries found by P.W. 13 on the body of the deceased during autopsy.
1. An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm. and bone deep with cut in the bone over the left side of the forehead extending from the left eye-brow to hair line of the scalp situated vertically.
2. An abrasion of 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. over the middle of the forehead with (sic) surrounding contusion situated vertically.
(3) An incised wound 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. exposing the fractured end of shaft of ulna over the back of middlethird of right forearm.
(4) An incised wound of 4 cm. x 1 cm. and communicating with the thoracic cavity present over the right side of the front of chest 3 cm. below the medial and of right collar bone. The injury was horizontally situated. The lateral end of the wound was sharply angled and at the medial end of the wound, there was certain amount of raggedness present.
(5)(a) An incised injury of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. over the palmar aspect of distal phalanx of left thumb.
(b) An incised injury of 2 cm. x 3/4 cm. exposing the dislocated metacarpo phalanged joint of the left index finger.
(c) An incised injury of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. exposing the tendons present over the palmar aspect of the middle of proximal phalanx of middle finger of left hand.
(d) An incised wound of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. and exposing the tendons over the palmar aspect of middle phalanx of ring finger of left hand.
(e) An incised wound of 1 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. exposing the tendons of distal inter phalangeal of left little finger of left hand.
On dissection of injury No. 4, P.W. 13 had found 600 ml. of clotted blood on the front side of the chest in the thoracic cavity. There had also been a cut of 1 cm. in the arch of the arota. P.W. 13 would opine that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him as noted in his post-mortem certificate Ex. P-12. He would further opine that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were ante-mortem and could have been caused by cutting with a sharp edged weapon like M.O. 1 aruval and that external injury No. 4, with its corresponding internal injuries is fatal in nature. According to P.W. 13, injury No. 5 in its entirety could have been caused by a single cut with a weapon like M.O. 1 aruval when the victim to ward off the cut and that injury No. 2 is possible to have been caused when the victim sustained it by warding off, by the tip portion of the aruval. Further, according to P.W. 13, the presence of the partially digested food in the stomach of the deceased would mean that he should have taken his food only five or six hours prior to his death and that margin of error in calculating the time might be two hours this way or otherwise. He would further opine that the deceased would appear to have died about 20 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination. It has to be noted that though P.W. 13 had been cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellant/accused, nothing tangible was brought out but for the fact that his evidence clearly lends every support and corroboration to the fact that on 15-8-1982 at 3.00 p.m., the deceased had been slained to death by perpetrating the homicidal violence with an aruval as alleged by the prosecution. Considering the evidence on the above referred to score and aspects, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion and finding about the manner in which the deceased had been attacked in the place and at the time as was projected by the prosecution while recording the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused.
21. As regards the complicity of the appellant/accused for the charge of murder tried against him, it was the finding of the learned trial Judge that it was the accused and accused alone who caused the death of the deceased Chinniyan by attacking him with M.O. 1 aruval at about 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-82 in his house. The learned trial Judge has arrived at the said conclusion on the basis of the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 on the one hand and the evidence of the resgestae witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 9 on the other. P.W. 1 is the first wife of the deceased Chinniyan and one Solaiammal is his second wife. P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased. All the them had been living together in a house situate in the Harijan Street, in Vennaputtur village at the time of the occurrence. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that on the morning of the day of occurrence, herself, her sister Solaiammal her husband viz., the deceased and some other womenfolk were engaged in transplantation work in their field situate on the back side of their house, that at that time her husband caught two rats from the ridges of their field and asked her to go along with him to their house for preparing food, that accordingly she and her husband went home and that she got engaged in the kitchen work while her husband was sleeping near the threshold of the backyard of their house. It is her further evidence that when she went to take water from the mud pot which had been placed beside her husband she noticed the appellant/accused entering their house through the backyard with M.O. 1 aruval in his hand, that when she shouted at him asking why he was running like that he started cutting her husband on his right forehand which her husband had kept on his head while he was sleeping, that she raised an alarm and her husband also shouted 'Ey, Appa', that at that time the accused again cut her husband on his forehead and then-upon his chest and left hand, that when herself and her husband raised hue and cry. P.W. 8 Dhanapalan, who was coming to their house to tap toddy from the coconut trees, rushed into their house and saw the accused cutting her husband with the aruval, that when P.W. 8 asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened P.W. 8 with the same fate if he neared him and stating so, the accused took his heels through the backyard of their house and then towards west, followed by P.W. 8 chasing him. P.W. 1 has further deposed that when she saw her husband after the accused had fled away, he was found in the pool of blood, that when she fed watr to him he breathed his last and that thereafter, on hearing the noise, her sister Solaiammal and others rushed to the scene of occurrence from the field where they had been working. P.W. 1 also identifies the dhoti M.O. 2 and the waist chord M.O. 3 as had been worn by her husband. She further identifies the aruval M.O. 1 as had been used by the appellant for cutting the deceased.
22. P.W. 8 Dhanapalan is the brother's son of the deceased. He has deposed that at the time of occurrence, when he was coming infront of the house of the deceased he heard the noise 'Aiyo, Appa' from the house of the deceased, that whereupon he rushed into the house and found the accused cutting the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval on his head and chest, that when he asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened him by showing the aruval and saying so, the accused ran outside the house through the backyard and then towards west, that by raising hue and cry he also ran behind the accused and at that time his senior paternal uncle's daughter Maharani and her husband P.W. 2 Karunanithi came infront of the accused and tried to intercept him, that the accused also threatened them by showing the aruval as a result of which they had retreated and that P.W. 9 Munusamy who is also a resident of the same locality attempted to catch the accused, but failed, as he was also threatened by the accused and that the accused had, thereafter, run through a lane leading to the river, towards north. It is further evidence of P.W. 8 that himself, P.W. 2 Karunanithi and his wife chased the accused to some distance and then returned back to the house of the deceased and found him dead, and that thereafter, he along with P.Ws. 2 and 9 went to Kalancheri, informed P.W. 3 about the occurrence and asked him to phone up to Ammapet Police Station.
23. P.W. 2 Karunanithi is a resident of Thirukkarugavur and he married one Maharani, the daughter of Murugan, who is also cousin of the deceased and whose house was situated in the same street on the western side of the house of the deceased. According to P.W. 2, he had been at Vennaputtur on the date of occurrence in connection with the field work of his father-in-law and at about 3.00 p.m., when he was taking food on being served by her wife Maharani he and his wife heard the noise raised by P.W. 8 and came out of their house. At that time they saw the accused running from east to west on being chased by P.W. 8. When P.W. 2 and his wife tried to intercept the appellant/accused, he threatened them by showing the aruval in his hand and ran towards west. Then, P.W. 9 Munusamy attempted to catch the accused who was also threatened by the accused by showing the aruval and the accused had run towards north. In short, P.W. 2 fully supports the claim of P.W. 8 in noticing the accused came running with aruval M.O. 1 along the street at about 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982. P.W. 9 Munusamy who is also a resident the Harijan Street in Vennaputtur and whose house is situated near Bhagavathi Ammal temple, as shown in the rough sketch, also fully corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2. It is significant to note that he is totally a stranger, but a resident of the same locality who saw the accused came running with the aruval M.O. 1 in his hand and on his having attempted to intercept the accused he had been threatened by the accused by showing the aruval in his hand. It has to be seen that these witnesses had been examined by the Inspector of Police P.W. 14, on the next day of the date of occurrence. All the above four witnesses had withstood the meticulous cross-examination done on behalf of the appellant/accused. In spite of such cross-examination at a considerable length nothing was brought out to suspect or discredit the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 and the res jestae narration of P.Ws. 2 and 9, by the defence.
24. It is true that P.W. 1 is the first wife of the deceased. Being the wife of the deceased she had been engaged in the transplantation work along with her husband and others in their field situate on the backside of their house and on being called upon by her husband she had gone to her house along with her husband where the occurrence had taken place in the day light at 3.00 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard gives no room for any suspicion. It is seen that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the deceased and P.W. 1 alone had been present at the time of occurrence, inside the house, when her husband was sleeping. The evidence of P.W. 8 is so natural and inspiring that it corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 8 states that at the time of occurrence he had been going in front of the house of the deceased for the purpose of tapping toddy from the coconut trees and on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased and P.W. 1 he rushed inside the house and saw the accused cutting the deceased with aruval M.O. 1, that when he asked the accused to stop cutting, the accused threatened him with the same fate if he neared him, by showing the aruval and that stating so, the accused ran out of the house through the backyard and then towards west. As observed by the learned trial Judge, on analysing the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 and the res gestae evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 9 there is no reason available in the established circumstances to disbelieve the versions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 as they are totally convincing, natural, cogent and with every legal credibility. While saying so, we do not at all have an iota of hesitation to hold that the evidence of these witnesses has to be accepted and relied upon.
25. Further, even assuming that P.W. 2 is one of the cousin brothers of the deceased, he happens to be a person belonging to another village and has no nexus with the appellant accused to speak against him. Similarly, P.W. 9, a resident of the village where the occurrence had taken place, is totally unconnected with the accused and had no blood relationship with him. He had no reason whatsoever to depose against the accused claiming to have seen the accused came running along the street with M.O. 1 aruval in his hand, at the time of occurrence. Thus, in our view, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 would reveal the complicity of the accused in attacking the deceased with M.O. 1 aruval and causing his death, as claimed by the prosecution and that their evidence has to be accepted in full. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves to digest the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused with regard to the proof offered by the prosecution regarding the complicity of the appellant herein, through the above said witnesses and that therefore, we are not inclined to countenance the same.
26. Coming to the motive aspects of the prosecution case, we have to take note of the contention made on behalf of the appellant/accused, by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, that even assuming that the motive for the occurrence as spoken to by P.Ws. 4 and 8 is true, that would provide no immediate proximity or nexus for the appellant to get himself involved in the crime of committing the murder of the deceased. In this context, we have to refer to the evidence of P.W. 4 Kalyani, P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu and P.W. 8 Dhanapalam. Initially, it has to be seen that the motive for the appellant as projected by the prosecution has been set out even in the complaint Ex. P1 by P.W. 8. P.W. 8 is none other than the younger brother's son of the deceased and the brother of P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu. According to this witness, one Amsu, the wife of P.W. 5 Kottaimuthu, was molested by one Karunanithi, son of Periyasamy, who was a pangali of the accused, and thereupon, the said Karunanithi was caught red handed and tied, but he had an escape. With regard to the said incident a complaint was made to the panchayatdars and it was pending for panchayat. The above incident, according to P.W. 8, had taken place 20 days prior to the occurrence. Subsequently, one week prior to the occurrence, the accused party had preferred a complaint before the police alleging that one Sekar, son of Thangaraj was beaten by one Shanmugham, P.W. 4 Kalyani and one Govindaraj, who were all belonging to the deceased party. Thus, there had been bitter enmity between the accused party and the deceased party. The above said narration of the facts by P.W. 8 is fully supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 Kalyani, the son of the deceased. According to P.W. 4 there had been past enmity between his family and the family of the accused which was further aggravated by the incident of molestation of the wife of P.W. 5 by Karunanithi, belonging to the accused party and it reached its climax when a false complaint was given by the accused party against himself, Shanmugham and Govindarajan.
27. Further, it is the evidence of P.W. 5 that about 20 days prior to the occurrence, when he was returning to his house at about 11.00 p.m. in the night after giving food to his younger brother, he saw his wife Amsu being molested by one Karunanithi, son of Periyasamy, that he caught the said Karunanithi redhanded and some of the relatives of Karunanithi had come and took him away after saying that they would enquire into the matter on the next morning. This evidence of P.W. 5 would clearly demonstrate the first incident which lead to the further aggravation of the past enmity between the two families of the accused party and the deceased party, as spoken to by P.Ws. 4 and 8 and provides extensive support to their evidence with regard to the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. Ex. P-1, the complaint lodged by P.W. 8, to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 12, on 6.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence, the earliest in point of time, contains a reference to the motive aspects pertaining to the two instances as spoken to by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 8. This would mean that in the complaint Ex. P-1 also, which was lodged immediately after the occurrence by P.W. 3 as prepared by P.W. 4, the motive aspect has been narrated. Though these witnesses viz. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 8 have been subjected to rigorous cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit their legal credibility and incontrovertible testimonies. In the context of the above convincing and unassailable facts and circumstances, we are totally unable to countenance the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there was no immediate motive for the appellant to get himself involved in the crime of committing the murder of the deceased.
28. Pertinent at this stage for us to refer to the decision reported in Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 MLJ (Crl) 462 : (1973 Cri LJ 159) where the Apex Court has held as followed at page 164; of Cri LJ :-
"Evidence as to motive would no doubt go a long way in cases, wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would from one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases, where there are eye witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases, if a motive is properly proved such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if a motive is not established the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy.
Even if the prosecution evidence is not sufficient or cogent enough for a motive to be spelt out of it, the fact that the prosecution was not able to discover such an impelling motive, would not reflect upon the credibility of a witness, proved to be a reliable eye-witness."
In the instant case, we could follow that the prosecution has come forward with adequate evidence for the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased and thereby get himself involved in the crime. Further, this is a case where the prosecution has not only relied on the evidence of res gestae witnesses on the established circumstances spelt out clearly by P.Ws. 2 and 9 but also the ocular testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 8 in bringing home the guilt and complicity of the appellant herein. In such established circumstances and in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above, the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence for the motive of the accused for committing the crime assumes no significance in this case. But, however, in the light of the evidence of more than three witnesses who consistently bring home the motive for the occurrence in this case, we are of the firm view that the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant do not bear any force and cannot at all be countenanced. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution had fully established the motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased and his consequent complicity in committing the said crime, by means of letting in acceptable and convincing evidence.
29. Mr. N. T. Vanamamala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly projected his attack upon the prosecution case contending that the written complaint Ex. P-1, given by P.W. 8, to P.W. 13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at the Ammapet Police Station, cannot be termed as a First Information Report as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the simple reason that even prior to the registering of the said Ex. P-1 by P.W. 12, there has been information given to the Ammapet Police Station, by P.W. 3, over phone on three instances and thereby the police had been informed of the occurrence involved in this case and that, therefore, if for any reason the complaint Ex. P-1 is treated as an F.I.R., it is directly hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would not under any circumstance amount to be an FIR and on that score, there was an inherent defect in the case on the basis of which the prosecution has to fail. Before proceeding to discuss the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel from the juristic point of view, we may first refer to the evidence of P.W. 3 Sambuvaityanathan, who is totally a stranger to the parties involved in this case and unconnected with the occurrence. According to this witness, he is a resident of Kalancheri, situate about 1 1/2 Km. away on the Western side of the scene of occurrence. He was approached by P.W. 8 on the date of occurrence to inform Ammapet Police over phone by narrating the occurrence. Accordingly, P.W. 3 went to the post office and contacted Ammapet Police over phone by informing of the occurrence that Maruthupandian had cut Chinniyan and run away, for which the police replaced that he should send somebody to give a written complaint. P.W. 3 stated that there was nobody to go over to the police station and give a written complaint and asked the police to come to the scene of occurrence immediately. The time was 4.00 p.m. then. Thereafter, P.W. 3 waited for half-an-hour and on getting no police, he again phoned up to the Ammapet Police Station and then to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur. When P.W. 3 contacted the Ammapet Police Station over phone, P.W. 4 Kalyani came there, P.W. 3 asked him to prepare a complaint and send it to the police as was required by them. Accordingly, P.W. 4 prepared the written complaint on the occurrence being narrated by P.W. 8 and send the same to the Ammapet Police Station. According to P.W. 3, the Ammapet Police arrived at the scene of occurrence about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence. Ex. P15 (series) is three receipts issued by the post office to P.W. 3 for having made three phone calls. On a perusal of Ex. P-15 (series), we are able to see that the first phone call has been made through phone connection No. 283, between 16.00 hours and 16.03 hours, for the duration of three minutes, the second call has been made between 16.43 hours and 16.46 hours for the duration of three minutes and the third phone call has been made between 17.18 hours and 17.20 hours for the duration of two minutes for phone No. 932, situated at Thanjavur. All these phone calls have been made from the Public Call Office, Kalancheri and the receipts have been issued by the postal authorities. The above facts found in Ex. P-15 (series) are perfectly in consonance with the claim made by P.W. 3.
30. Further, it is the evidence of P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, that at about 6.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982, when he was in charge of the Ammapet Police Station he received an information about the occurrence in this case, from Kalanchery over phone and when he was about to leave for the scene of occurrence, P.W. 8, the author of Ex. P-1 appeared before him in the police station and gave Ex. P-1 written complaint to him, which he registered under the Ammapet Police Station Cr. No. 146/82 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the further evidence of P.W. 12 that on the basis of Ex. P1, he prepared Ex. P6, the printed F.I.R. and sent it to the court and its copies to the higher officials.
31. On a meticulouse consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 12, we may straightway observe that there is no force in the contention made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, as stated above, for the simple reason that a telephonic message received by a police officer or a person in the police station is only cryptic and anonymous oral message, which in our view may not in terms clearly specify the cognizable offence and therefore cannot be treated as First Information Report as defined under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In this regard, in "Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab" , the Apex Court has held as follows :-
"The telephonic message recorded in the daily diary of the police station was a cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence and could not, therefore, be treated as first information report. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of time could not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report. The question whether or not a particular document constitutes a first information report has to be determined in each case."
In another case Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat , the Apex Court has held the legal ratio on the aspect of First Information as contemplated under section 154, Cr.P.C. in the following terms :-
at page 1211, of Cri LJ :-
"Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, the First Information is the earliest report made to the Police Officer with a view to his taking action in the matter. In the instant case, the complainant had made the report regarding the occurrence having taken place to P.S.I. Patel, who however, before reducing it into writing, be way of abundant caution tried to seek further instruction from the main police station at Surat and that was why he had booked a call to Surat. The message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to constitute a First Information Report within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code and was meant to be only for the purpose of getting further instructions. Furthermore, the facts narrated to P.S.I. Patel which were reduced to writing a few minutes later undoubtedly constituted the First Information Report in point of time made to the police in which necessary facts were given. In these circumstances, the telephonic message to the Police Station at Surat cannot constitute the First Information Report."
32. That learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Randhir Singh v. The State" 1980 Cri LJ 1397 contending that, after a telephonic message having been received by the police officer attached to a particular police station relating to the cognizance of a cognizable offence and registered the written complaint subsequently given by any of the prosecution party and registering it will be clearly hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure basing on the legal principle enunciated in "Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab" . But, the ratio held in the said decision has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand for the simple reason that P.W. 12 would consistently claim that on receipt of the phone message from the public call office at Kalancheri, he was about to proceed to the scene of occurrence and at that time P.W. 8 appeared before him in the police station and lodged Ex. P1 on the basis of which he registered a case under Ammapet Police Station Cr. No. 146/82 under section 302, I.P.C. and took up further action. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 3 it is seen that it is only P.W. 3 who is the author of the telephonic message that Chinnayan was cut by the appellant/accused. In this context and in the light of the above legal norms and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court that the telephonic message is merely cryptic and anonymous, we are fully satisfied to hold that the ingredients contemplated under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not at all be compelied with in the case and as was rightly argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are fully satisfied to hold that the telephonic message spoken to by P.W. 3 did not amount to be an F.I.R. as contemplated by law and that in all, Ex. P1 would clearly and squarely lands within the ambit of Section 154, Cr.P.C. amounting to be the First Information Report and that accordingly we reject the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant made on the above said aspect.
33. Yet another, important aspect to be taken note of on the aspect of the legality of Ex. P1 is that in spite of the evidence given by P.W. 12 the then Sub-Inspector, Ammapet Police Station, who received the complaint Ex. P1 and set the law in motion, and the consistent evidence of the investigating officer P.W. 14 no cross-examination had been done in the trial Court on the line of the attack made by the learned Senior Counsel challenging the legality of Ex. P1 as was done before us. That apart, on materials were made available to substantiate this contention. The general Diary of the Police Station relating to the particular day has not been summoned so as to enable the trial Court to grab that aspect either for or against the prosecution and this could have been done if a plea had been raised before the trial Court. But, unfortunately that had not been done in the trial Court by the defence. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 12 and 14 in this case would clearly demonstrate the fact that the complaint given by P.W. 8 was prepared by P.W. 4 which amounts to be the First Information Report and based upon which Ex. P6 printed F.I.R. had been prepared by P.W. 2 and sent to the Court without any unreasonable delay. This opinion of ours would definitely and to the conclusion arrived at by us now that there is only one F.I.R. in this case and that is Ex. P1 which came into existence at the earlier point of time and that the phone message given by P.W. 3 did not under any circumstances amount to be the First Information Report as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
33A. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however at request produced the General Diary of the Ammapet Police Station which on our perusal shows that an entry had been made on 15-8-1982 at 16.00 hours to the effect that a phone message from one Sambavaidhyanathan Iyer, from Kalanchery post office had been received stating that one Marudhupandian had murdered one Chinnaiyan by cutting him with an aruval and calling upon the police to take action upon the same. Again, it is seen from the General Diary that about 17.55 hours another phone message had been received from the same person with regard to the occurrence. As we have already observed, though the said phone message referred to in the General Diary relates to the one conveyed by Dhanapal and transpired through phone by a third person, since it was found cryptic and it required further verification, it would not attract Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Even otherwise assuming for argument's sake that it attracts Section 154, Cr.P.C. we are not inclined to accept the entry made by the Police Constable of the particular Police Station, within one hour from the occurrence amounting to an F.I.R. and Ex. P. 1 comes under the purview of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. since the subsequent documents relied on by the prosecution render full corroboration to the prosecution case in establishing the guilt and complicity of the appellant herein and that therefore without subscribing our view to the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel we have to hold that the said argument is unsustainable.
34. In this case, there is no serious controversy with regard to the delay in the vital documents Exs. P1 and P6 reaching the Court. It is the evidence of P.W. 12 that he received Ex. P1 given by P.W. 8 at the Ammapet Police Station on 15-8-1982 at 6.00 p.m. got it registered under Cr. No. 146/82 of the said police station prepared printed F.I.R. Ex. P6 and immediately sent it to the Court and its copies to the higher officials. It is seen from the initiate put by the learned Magistrate on Exs. P1 and P6 that these documents had reached Court at Papanasam at about 11.55 p.m. on that day. It is also seen that since 15-8-1982 happened to be a national holiday (Independence Day) the date seal of the Court has been put on 16-8-1982 in these documents. It is the claim of P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 that the distance between Ammapet Police Station and Papanasam Town, where the Magistrate's Court is situated, is about 20 Kms. and that there was no frequent bus service in between the said two points. P.W. 14 the Investigating Officer would claim that there were two buses running between the said two places one in the morning and the other in the evening alone and that too, it would take at least one hour to cover the said distance. There was no serious controversy or dispute over the claim made by P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 about the distance between Ammapet Police Station and Papanasam town and the time of registering the complaint Ex. P1 and the time of receipt of Exs. P1 and P6 in the Court as relied on by the prosecution. It has to be seen that the occurrence in this case has taken place at 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982 and after having attempted to get the police to the scene of occurrence through phone and having failed in their attempt, the prosecution witnesses had thereafter given Ex. P1 written complaint in the Ammapet Police Station at 6.00 p.m. on that day, which situate at a distance of about 12 Km. from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, Ex. P6 had been prepared and sent to Court which had reached the Court at 11.55 p.m. on the same day at Papanasam. Thus, having considered the distance between the absence of occurrence and the Police Station and the concerned Magistrate's court and the various facts and circumstances found in this case and the efforts having been taken by the prosecution witnesses to set the law in motion, we are of the opinion that there are no laches of any kind on the part of the prosecution in sending the vital documents to the concerned Court from the Police Station.
35. Coming to the investigation done in this case, though nothing was canvassed before us pointing out any laches or defects except stating that all the documents including the First Information Report have been prepared only on the next day of the occurrence and not on the date of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution, nothing was brought out to substantive the said contention made on behalf of the appellant. This contention in our view, is merely a conjecture and self-serving suggestion without any basis. On the contrary, a close scrutiny of the evidence of the investigating staff viz. P.Ws. 12 and 14, the Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police respectively, and P.W. 10 the post-mortem constable coupled with all other material evidence would clearly show that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and that there are no material latches warranting any comment. On the above score, the learned trial Judge has dealt with each and every one of the above aspects in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion in recording the judgment of the conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused.
36. Having considered and analysed the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution along with the established and attendant circumstances involved in this case and the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties herein, we are fully satisfied to hold that the prosecution in the instant case has fully established the complicity and guilt of the appellant herein in committing the murder of the deceased Chinniyan by attacking him with M.O. 1 aruval at 3.00 p.m. on 15-8-1982 in his house beyond the venture of any doubt and that therefore the learned trial Judge is right in convicting the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for his life. We do not come across any infirmity or laches of any kind in the case of the prosecution.
37. In the result, this Criminal Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused are hereby maintained.
38. Appeal dismissed.