Madras High Court
T.Govindasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 22 July, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.07.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.A.No.184 of 2015 1. T.Govindasamy 2. R.Ravi 3. R.Murugesan 4. N.Kalimuthu .. Appellants Vs State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police Kundadam Police Station .. Respondent Appeal filed u/s.374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in S.C.No.177 of 2011 on 12.02.2015. For Appellant-1 : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Appellant-3 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Appellants- 2 & 4 : Mr.T.Gowthaman For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,] A1, A3, A4 and A5 in S.C.No.177 of 2011, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, are the appellants herein. Totally there are six accused in this case. All the accused were charged with for offences under Sections 148, 149, 342, 302 r/w.34, 396, 342 r/w.34 and 302 IPC. The trial Court convicted A1 under Section 449 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted under Section 341 IPC, sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicted under Section 392 IPC, and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo four months simple imprisonment. A3 was convicted under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and he was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo four months simple imprisonment. A4 was convicted under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and he was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo four months simple imprisonment. A5 was convicted under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and he was also found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo four months simple imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered all the sentences to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted A2 and A6 from all the charges. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, A1, A3, A4 and A5 have filed the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
(i) The deceased in this case one Ravichandran was the husband of PW.1. A1 purchased an extent of 2.17 cents of land out of 3.52 cents of land belongs to the deceased, but he enjoyed the entire extent of 3.52 cents forcibly. Hence, there was a land dispute between them for nearly 20 years and the deceased has also given a police complaint against A1. In the above circumstances, on 24.07.2011, at 11 a.m, all the six accused came with sickle and spear; A1 and A2 caught hold of PW.1; A3, at the instigation of A1 and A2, attacked the deceased with sickle; A6 attacked the deceased with Aruval in the left shoulder; A5 attacked the deceased with Aruval on the left leg and knee; A4 attacked the deceased with spear in the thigh. A1 and A2 snatched Mangal Suthra of PW.1 and ran away. Then PW.1 along with one Balasubramanian went to the police station and lodged a complaint.
(ii) PW.11 Special Sub Inspector of Police in the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint registered the case in Crime No.553 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 342, 302 and 379 IPC and prepared First Information Report Ex.P15 and dispatched the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court and also the higher officials.
(iii) PW.14 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and also rough sketch Ex.P19 in the presence of witnesses and took photographs of the deceased in the scene of occurrence, and then conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars between 2.45 p.m and 4.15 p.m, prepared an inquest report Ex.P20, and sent the dead body for postmortem (autopsy) through PW.12 - Head Constable and on the scene of occurrence, he recovered the blood stained cement slab (M.O.4) and sample cement slab (M.O.5), blood stained cotton towel (M.O.6), blood stained pillow (M.O.7), Mangalsuthra (M.O.2), blood stained sickle (M.O.8) and blood stained spear (M.O.3).
(iv) PW.8 Assistant Surgeon then working in Dharapuram Government Hospital conducted postmortem (autopsy) on the dead body on 24.07.2011 at about 5 p.m and found the following injuries:-
Extenral Genetalia:
1.25 x 10 cm size cut injury, 10 cm depth seen over the left shoulder, left deltoid muscles cut and left humerus bone exposed. 2.30 x 10 cm size cut injury in the left arm, under lying muscles cut, humerus expose and fractured. 3.30 x 5 x 5 cm cut injury oblique in direction in the left arm, underlying muscles cut, humerus exposed and fractured, extending from shoulder to elbow.
4.A cut injury in the (Rt.) hand in which the (Rt.) thumb was absent
5.A cut injury in the (Rt.) palm which was horizontal in direction and 2 cm above the MCP joint. All the muscles, vessels, nerves, tendons and bone were cut.
6.A cut injury 40 x 10 x 5 cm in the forearm on the (Rt.) side extending from (Rt.) elbow to (Rt.) wrist underlying muscles cut and bone exposed.
7.A cut injury 10 x 5 x 5 cm over the left knee. Knee joint opene, ligaments cut, cartilages cut, join bone exposed.
8.A cut injury 10 x 5 x 5 cm seen 5 cm above the left ankle, exposing the underlying cut muscles, bone fracture, only skin attached with a tag.
9.A cut injury 10 x 5 x 2 cm with underlying bone fracture and muscles cut tag was present.
10.A cut injury 12 x 5 x 4 cm on the foot exposing the underlying muscle.
11.A cut injury 8 x 5 x 2 cm seen below the (Rt.) knee underlying muscles cut and bone exposed.
12.A cut injury 12 x 4 x 2 cm seen at the back of the left thigh, underlying muscles cut.
13.A cut injury horizontal in direction 8 x 4 x 2 cm seen over the left leg below the left knee.
Internal Examination:
Skull vault membrane intact. Brain (N) c/s pale. Base of skull (N). Hyoid intact. Ribs intact. Heart ... Lungs .... Stomach .. 400 gms of undigested food particles present. ..... PW.8 Doctor issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P14) and she was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.
(v) PW.14 arrested the accused A2, A4 and A5 on 26.07.2011 and on such arrest, all the accused voluntarily gave confession and based on the disclosure statement of A2, he recovered blood stained dhoti (M.O.9) of the accused and also based on the disclosure statement of A5, he recovered a sickle (M.O.10), thereafter he arrested A1 and A3 and on such arrest, they also voluntarily gave confession and based on the disclosure statement of A1, he recovered a gold chain of PW.1 and on the disclosure statement of A3, he recovered Arival. Subsequently, he took A6 under police custody and A6 also voluntarily gave confession and based on the disclosure statement, he recovered blood stained dhothi and recorded the statement of postmortem Doctor and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court has framed charges as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment. The accused denied the same, in order to prove the same, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents and 20 material objects.
4. Out of the witnesses examined, PW.1 is the eye witness to the occurrence, she is the wife of deceased. According to PW.1, there was a land dispute between A1 and the deceased for nearly 20 years; A1 purchased 2.17 cents of land out of 3.52 cents belongs to the deceased, but he forcibly enjoying the entire extent; hence there was frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused over the enjoyment of land; in the above circumstances, on 24.07.2011, at about 11 a.m, all the accused came to the house of the deceased; A1 and A2 caught hold of PW.1 and A3, A5 and A6 attacked the deceased with Arival and A4 attacked him with spear and A1 snatched away the gold chain and subsequently, with the help of one Balasubramanian, she lodged the complaint. PW.2 turned hostile. PW.3 is a tenant under the deceased. According to him, after the occurrence, he saw all the accused came out of the house of the deceased and saw the deceased inside the house. P.Ws.4 and 5 are hearsay witnesses. PW.6 Village Administrative Officer is a witness to the Observation Mahazar and also recovery of M.Os.1 to 8. PW.7 - another Village Administrative Officer, who witnessed the arrest of A2, A4 and A5 and also recovery of other material objects. PW.8 - Doctor conducted postmortem (autopsy) on the dead body of the deceased and gave postmortem report (Ex.P14). PW.9 is the photographer. PW.10 - Head Constable submitted the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. PW.11 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the complaint. PW.12 - Head Constable identified the body for postmortem and handed over the body to the relatives after postmortem. PW.13 - Assistant Director of Forensic Lab, examined the blood stained material objects and gave a report Ex.P18. PW.14 - Inspector of Police in the respondent police, conducted investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. The accused did not examine any witnesses, but marked four photographs as Exs.D1 to D4 on their side.
6. Considering the above materials, the trial Court convicted A1, A3, A4 and A5 and sentenced them as stated in paragraph-1 of the judgment. Challenging the same, all the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records carefully.
8. PW.1 is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. She is the wife of deceased. According to PW.1, on the date of occurrence, all the accused came to their house and A1 and A2 caught hold of her and A3, A5 and A6 attacked the deceased with Arival and A4 attacked the deceased in thigh with spear, and ran away; she along with 20 of his relatives went to the police station and one Balasubramanian wrote the complaint and she lodged the same before the respondent police. But in the cross examination, PW.1 has deposed that before filing the complaint, she consulted with his relatives, and after long deliberation, she lodged the complaint. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, as per the evidence of PW.1, before filing the complaint, nearly 20 people, who are related to PW.1 and deceased, were having discussions and there is deliberation between them and they have discussed how to give the complaint and after taking the decision, PW.1 lodged the complaint. From the testimony of PW.1, the false implication of accused cannot be ruled out.
9. Apart from that, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the eye witness. According to PW.1, A4 stated to have attacked the deceased with spear in the right thigh, but in the postmortem report, no stab injury was found. As per the evidence of PW.1, injury No.11 said to have been caused by A4 with spear, but the medical evidence does not corroborate the same. Even as per the evidence of PW.8 - postmortem Doctor, injury No.11 is a cut injury and could not be inflicted by a weapon like spear.
10. So far as recovery of gold chain by PW.14 based on the disclosure statement of A1 is concerned, in his cross examination PW.14 has stated that he did not go to A1's house while seizing the gold chain (M.O.2). The trial Court after holding that there is deliberation between PW.1 and her relatives before filing the complaint and because of some instigation from politically inimical persons, the names of A2 and A6 were included and disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 and acquitted A2 and A6.
11. In the above said circumstances, PW.1 - sole eye witness to the occurrence, being the wife of deceased, is an interested witness. Even though there is no bar to act upon the testimony of single witness, but in the instant case, since there are lot of contradictions in the testimony of PW.1 and she has also admitted that there was deliberation before lodging the complaint, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the interested testimony of PW.1, without any corroboration, to convict the appellants especially when the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 in part and acquitted A2 and A6.
12. Apart from that, the occurrence said to have taken place on 24.07.2011 at about 11 a.m and the complaint was lodged at about 12.15 noon, but the First Information Report reached the Court only at 9.05 p.m, after a delay of 9 hours and absolutely, there is no explanation on the side of prosecution for the long delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court, which also creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
13. Hence, all the above circumstances as a whole creates a doubt about the prosecution version. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused and the accused are entitled for acquittal.
14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / A1, A3, A4 and A5 on 12.02.2015 in S.C.No.177 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, are set aside. All the accused are acquitted and fine amount already paid, if any, shall be refunded to them. Their bail bonds shall stand terminated.
[S.N.J.,] [V.B.D.J.,]
22.07.2016
Index : Yes/no
mra
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police
Kundadam Police Station.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
and
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mra
Judgment in
Crl.A.No.184 of 2015
22.07.2016
http://www.judis.nic.in