Madras High Court
Ravi vs The State on 4 December, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No. 392 of 2003 Ravi S/o.Thangavel Santhana Mariamman Kovil street, Muthuramalinga Nagar Reserve Line Sivakasi ... Appellant Vs. The State, rep by Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur made in S.C.No.135 of 2000. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Ravi ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.135 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. The trial Court, by judgment, dated 20.07.2001, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life (no fine was imposed). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this criminal appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
P.W.1 is a resident of Muthuramalingam street in Sivakasi West. The deceased-Raja was his brother. There was a proposal for P.W.1 to marry one Saraswathy. The accused is none other than the cousin of Saraswathy. The said marriage proposal was not to the liking of the deceased and his mother. Thus, the said marriage proposal was dropped. On 21.10.1999, at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 was proceeding on the Santhanamariamman koil street. At that time, Saraswathy came there and questioned P.W.1, as to why, he declined to marry her. P.W.1 told her that the said marriage proposal was not agreeable to the deceased and his mother. At that time, the accused also came to the spot. On hearing the above conversation, the accused starred at him and left from the said place. On the next day, that was on 22.10.1999, at about 10.30 a.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and developed quarrel with P.W.1. P.W.1 told the accused that the marriage proposal had to be dropped because of the unwillingness on the part of his brother, the deceased Raja and his mother. After the quarrel, the accused went away. Thereafter, P.W.1, the deceased and few others had gone to the house of one Rajendran Kothanar for getting their coolie. Since Mr.Rajendran Kothanar was not available, they were returning to their house. Near the Santhanamariamman temple, P.W.2 and one Muthuramalingam were standing. P.W.1 had a chat with P.W.2. The deceased had gone ahead of P.W.1 by a distance of about 3 feet. At that time, suddenly, the accused came to the spot armed with a patta knife. He shouted at the deceased saying that he wont allow the deceased to live, since he had spoiled the life of his sister. Then, he attempted to stab the deceased with knife. The deceased warded off. As a result, the blow fell on the left hand of the deceased causing injury. Again, the accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest. The deceased fell down. P.Ws.1, 2 and others raised alarm. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. Immediately, P.W.1 arranged for an auto and shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital at Sivakasi.
3. P.W.4, Doctor Ganesan was the Duty Medical Officer, at Sivakasi Government Hospital. At 12.10 p.m., he examined the deceased and he found him already dead. He gave an intimation to the police under Ex.P2. He made entry in the accident register about the injuries found on the deceased. Ex.P3 is the accident register. Then, he forwarded the body to the mortuary.
4. On receipt of the said hospital intimation, as per the version of P.W.10, one Velpandian, the then Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the hospital. At 12.45 p.m., he recorded the statement of P.W.1 at the hospital. On returning to the police station, at 1.45 p.m., Mr.Velpandian registered a case in Crime No.572 of 1999, under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P14 is the FIR. Mr.Velpandian had forwarded the FIR and the complaint to the Court through P.W.8. The same was received by the learned Magistrate at 03.30 p.m.
5. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police attached to Sivakasi Town Police Station, proceeded to the mortuary at 2.45 p.m. Between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P15 Mahazar. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where in the presence of P.W.6, he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P6 and also a rough sketch (Ex.P16). He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth M.Os.8 and 9 from the place of occurrence under Ex.P7 mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.
6. P.W.5 Dr. Balasubramanian conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 23.10.1999, at 12.30 p.m. He noticed the following injuries:
1.An incised wound size 4cm x 2 cm in the right supra mammary region of the chest about 3 cm lateral to sternal margin on the third right intercostal space.
On local dissection, the injury found entered into thoracic cavity in the third right intercostal space.
2.An incised wound size 2 cm x + cm x muscle depth on the side of left elbow. On opening of thorax, there was about 2 litres of blood found in the right pleural cavity. The stab found on the lower part of upper lobe of rt lung; pass through whole of the lower lobe and came out in the medial party of inner surface of lower lobe and enter into inferior vena cava above the diaphragm.
Ex.P5 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic shock due to the injury to the inferior venacava and the lung.
7. Continuing the investigation, P.W.10 examined a few more witnesses and recovered the dress materials from the body of the deceased. He recovered M.O.10, the bloodstained banian owned by P.W.1 at the time of occurrence as well as a lungi (M.O.11) owned by him. Both were bloodstained. On 26.11.1999, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.10 arrested the accused at Sivakasi Reserve line Housing Board Bus stop. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.10. P.W.6 and another witnesses were present at the time, when the accused was arrested. In the said confession, he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife, (M.O.1). In pursuance of the same, the accused took P.W.10 and the witness to the said place and took out the same from the hide out. P.W.10 recovered the same under Ex.P9 mahazar. Then, P.W.10 forwarded the material objects to the Court with a request to the Court to forward the same to chemical analysis. Ex.P12 is the chemical analysis report. But no bloodstain was found on M.O.1 knife. P.W.10 collected the medical records and examined the Doctors and finally, on completing, the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC.
8. Based on the same, the trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. He denied the same. Therefore, he was put on trial. During the trial, in order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and 14 material objects.
9. Of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, who have fully spoken to about the occurrence. P.W.3 has spoken to about the motive, namely, the occurrence, which preceded the murder. P.W.4, Dr.Ganesan, has spoken to about the fact that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital and P.W.5 has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him and he has also offered opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.6 has spoken to about the arrest of the accused, the confession given by him and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 patta knife from the possession of the accused. The others are official witnesses.
10. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses on his side nor marked any documents. Having considered the above, the trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, punished him. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this criminal appeal.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
12. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2, the so called eye witnesses cannot be believed because they have got very strong motive against the accused. The learned counsel would further submit that the occurrence had taken place just somewhere and not in the house of P.W.1. Thus, the presence of P.Ws,1 and 2, according to the learned counsel, at the time of occurrence is doubtful. He would further submit that the place of occurrence has not been clearly established by the prosecution.
13. At any rate, assuming that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused, the offence said to have been committed by him, would not fall under Section 302 IPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the act of the accused would fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC and so the offence would fall only under Section 304 (1) IPC.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Their presence has been clearly established by the prosecution. He would further submit that the act of the accused clearly falls within the first limb of Section 300 IPC and there are no materials, as of now, to even infer that the accused acted in grave and sudden provocation. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
15. We have considered the above submissions.
16. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have clearly spoken about the occurrence, as well as the occurrence, which had taken place at the house of P.W.1 prior to the occurrence. Though, P.Ws.1 to 3 have been cross examined at length, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve their part of the evidence. But the line of cross examination made by the accused would go to show that he suggested very strong motive for P.Ws.1 and 2 against the accused. It is needless to point out that motive is a double edged weapon, which can be used by either side. Here in this case, undoubtedly, there was motive for the accused as against the deceased, on account of the fact that the deceased was the hindrance for the marriage between P.W.1 and Saraswathy.
17. Now, coming to the actual occurrence, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite natural. According to P.W.1, he went to the house of one Rajendran Kothanar for getting his coolie along with the deceased. When they were returning home, they found P.W.2 and one Muthuramalingam standing near the temple. P.W.1 has a small chat with P.W.2. The deceased had gone ahead by 3 feet. At that time, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused suddenly rushed towards the deceased and attacked him. Thus, in our considered opinion, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved at all.
18. Nextly, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the first attack was made by the accused on the deceased with knife. The deceased warded off. As a result, the injury fell on the left hand of the deceased. Not stopping with that, the accused again stabbed him on the chest. This has been very clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. It was only P.W.1, who took the deceased to the hospital immediately. According to P.W.4, Dr.Ganesan, at 12.10 p.m., the deceased was brought to him. The Doctor was told that the deceased was stabbed by a known person with knife. This was the earliest information passed on to the Doctor. The time of occurrence was also mentioned as 11.45 a.m. The deceased was found dead due to the injuries. Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, it has been clearly proved that the injuries found on the deceased were caused only by this accused. As we have already stated, on the intimation from P.W.4, the Sub Inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1. There is no delay in preferring the said complaint. There is also no delay in forwarding the same to the Court. It is needless to point out that prompt lodging of FIR, always, to some extent, vouches for the truth of the contents of the said information.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the place of occurrence has not been established. But, we do not find any material at all to substantiate the said contention. P.Ws.1 and 2 have very clearly stated that the occurrence was just near the temple, where the bloodstained earth was found and the same was recovered. In the chemical examination, the same has been established to be of human origin. P.W.6, the witness for observation mahazar himself clearly speaks about the place of occurrence. Thus, the place of occurrence has clearly been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed because the place of occurrence has not been clearly spoken to by them cannot be accepted.
20. Now, turning to the cause of death, P.W.5, Dr.Balasubramanian, has clearly stated that the external injury found on the chest was corresponding to the internal injury found on the lung and inferior vena cava. His opinion is that the said injury would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 knife. He has further opined that the death was due to the hemorrhagic shock due to the injury to the inferior vena cava and lung. Thus, from the medical evidence, the prosecution has clearly established that the death was caused by the accused and it is a homicide.
21. Now, coming to the last contention of the learned counsel, according to him, the act of the accused would fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC. It is his contention that the accused acted due to sustained provocation and therefore, he is liable to be punished only under Section 304 (I) IPC. As we have already pointed out, it is not as though the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment. After the first occurrence at the house of P.W.1 at 10.30 a.m., the accused had left and waited near the temple with a knife. On the arrival of the deceased, suddenly he emerged and stabbed him twice. The first attack itself was aimed at the vital part of the deceased. Since it was warded off, the blow fell on the hand of the deceased. Not stopping with that, the accused stabbed him again on the vital part, namely, on the chest. The injury on the chest is a very deep injury, which has pierced the lungs thereby resulted in instantaneous death. The motive, the weapon used, the words uttered, the location of the injury, the force with which the injury has been caused and the nature of injury will all go to clearly establish that the accused had a definite intention to do away with the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused clearly fall within the first limb of Section 300 IPC. As we have already pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence even to infer that the accused acted either in grave and sudden provocation or due to sustained provocation. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel is only liable to be rejected.
22. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. In respect of the quantum of punishment also, no infirmity has been pointed out. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal.
23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, is confirmed.
RR To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.