Madras High Court
S.Ramalingam vs The State Rep. By on 28 March, 2006
Author: S.R.Singharavelu
Bench: S.R.Singharavelu
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dated : 28/03/2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Singharavelu Criminal A. No.577 of 1997 and Crl.M.P.No.3535 of 1997 S.Ramalingam ... Appellant Accused Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thirumannur, Trichy District. ... Respondent Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code as stated therein. !Petitioner .. Mr.C.Christopher ^Respondent .. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Govt. Advocate(Crl.) :ORDER
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 21.1.1997 made in S.C.No.220 of 1996 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy, thereby acquitting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicting him under Section 304 Part I IPC. and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with right of set off under Section 420 Cr.P.C..
2. The occurrence took place at 11.00 P.M on 6.7.1995, where the appellant/accused by name S.Ramalingam had caused fatal injuries upon his wife Kannagi, who later succumbed to the injuries.
3. On the side of the complainant P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and exhibits P1 to P17 and Mos. 1 to 8 were marked.
4. Post-mortem certificate of Kannagi was marked as Ex.P8, which reveals the following external injuries:-
1) A slicing wound at the frontal region of the scalp with an inverted "U"
shaped measuring 10 cm. carrying a flap of frontal bone along with scalp, with a pedicle at the forehead exposing the frontal lobe of the brain. The dura in that area is not present. A portion of the frontal lobe under the wound is missing
2) An incised wound at the right shoulder measuring 3cm x 4cm x 2cm.
3) A slicing wound distal to the right elbow 8cm x 4cm exposing the muscles.
4) On exploring the right arm there is fracture of the humours at the middle 3rd.
5) An incised wound on the right forearm, ventral aspect 6cm x 2cm of skin deep.
6) An incised wound on the right palm at the 1st WEB 4cm x 1cm of skin deep.
7) An incised wound over the proximal phalanyx of right little finger 2cm x 1cm of skin deep.
8) there is an incised wound over the left shoulder outer aspect 8cm x 3cm of muscle deep.
9) An incised wound over upper 3rd of the left arm 7cm x 3cm exposing the muscle.
10) An incised wound over the left arm middle 3rd 8cm x 4cm exposing the muscle and the fractured ends of the humours.
11) An incised wound over the dorsm of the left hand dividing the extens or tendons of the left and fracture of II, III, IV, V metacarpels.
12) An incised wound over the left thigh front aspect middle 3rd 8cm x 4cm exposing the muscles.
13) An incised wound over the right scapular region 3cm x 2cm exposing the muscles.
The post-mortem Doctor (P.W.6) opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Shock & haemorrhage due to injuries sustained and also due to head injury 36 to 48 hrs. prior to Autopsy.
5. Ex.P9 is the letter of the Investigating Officer addressed to the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur with a requisition to send the M.Os. for forensic analysis. It was sent under Ex.P10 to the Director of Forensic Science. The result was found under Ex.P11, wherein the pieces of cement plaster, blouse, skirt, sari and a billhook were found containing human blood of 'B' group.
6. The recovery of billhook (M.O.1) was made in pursuance of the admitted portion of confession(Ex.P5) of the accused under Ex.P6 recovery mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer,(P.W.5), who was also deposed to that effect.
7. The printed copy of F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P13, wherein the occurrence was noted as 11.00 P.M. on 6.7.1995 and it was reported at 9.30 A.M. on 7.7.1995. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 7 Kilometres.
8. One Rangasamy, Village Administrative Officer,Annamangalam, (P.W.5) was the informant.
9. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses. They have categorically spoken about the occurrence. P.W.3 is the owner of the place where the occurrence took place. P.W.4 Vairam deposed about the frequent quarrel that took place between the appellant/accused and the deceased Kannagi.
10. The Investigating Officer, on receipt of information regarding the occurrence visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar(Ex.P3), sketch(Ex.P15), conducted inquest and prepared inquest report(Ex.Ex.P16), entrusted the body for post-mortem through P.W.11, arrested the accused and recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of P.W.5, and other witness, recovered the weapon M.O.1 in the presence of P.W.5 under Ex.P6, remanded the accused, examined the witnesses, recovered the M.Os. 1 to 8, sent requisition to the Magistrate for sending the M.Os. for Forensic Analysis and filed charge sheet.
11. P.Ws. 1 and 2 do speak about the occurrence. Small inconsistencies are there, but they cannot falsify the case of prosecution. The inconsistencies are only of trivial substances. The accused himself has confessed and upon his confession the weapon used for the commission of offence was recovered through mahazar and the witnesses to the mahazar also corroborated the same.
12. The bloodstained M.Os. including the weapon (M.O.1) were sent to the Forensic Analyst. In the Serology Report (Ex.P12) given by the Forensic Expert he has opined that the bloodstain in the said M.O.1. contained human blood 'B' group, which is tallied with the bloodstain in the other M.Os. 2,4,5 and 6, which found contained the same human blood 'B' group under Ex.P.11.
13. The post-mortem Doctor was also examined as P.W.6. He opined that the injuries, especially the head injury on the deceased would have been caused by such weapon (M.O.1). Causation of such injuries by the appellant/accused was spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of other witnesses also corroborated with the evidence of eye-witnesses and the medical officer's evidence. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses. On the other hand, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution or to create any doubt against the case of prosecution.
14. The learned trial Judge having considered the oral and documentary evidence which correlated with each other has rightly found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Par I instead of offence under Section 302 IPC. and sentenced him as aforesaid. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered and merited judgement of conviction and sentence made by the trial Court.
15. This Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. The Judgment dated 21.1.1997 made in S.C.No.220 of 1996 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy, thereby acquitting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicting him under Section 304 Part I IPC. and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment is confirmed.
To The II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy.
PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN