Madras High Court
Sankar @ Sankapillai vs State Rep. By on 11 July, 2016
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11..07..2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.380 of 2015 Sankar @ Sankapillai ... Appellant -Versus- State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station, Erode District. [Crime No.422 of 2012] ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in S.C.No.29 of 2013 dated 05.03.2015. For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja, APP JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) This is a case of triple murder with robbery. The accused is the appellant/sole accused in the case. The trial court [the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharapuram] framed charges under Sections 302 of IPC [Three counts] and 392 of IPC against the accused. By judgement dated 05.03.2015, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for offence under Section 302 of IPC [Three counts] and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for offence under Section 392 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and the sentences, the sole accused has come up with this criminal appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased Mr.Periyasamy Gounder [hereinafter referred to as 'D1'], the deceased Mrs.Santhamani [hereinafter referred to as 'D2'] and the deceased Mrs.Ramathal [hereinafter referred to as 'D3'] were all residing in the lonely house in their farm at Sengattu Thottam in Kadayuranvalasu. D2 is the wife of D1 and D3 is the mother-in-law of D1. It is alleged that on 01.10.2012, around 9.00 p.m., the accused, killed all the three deceased by attacking them with a wooden log and a knife. Then, he removed six sovereigns of gold chain with thali from D2; a Nokia Cellphone; a silk saree and other properties from the house of the deceased. Abandoning the dead bodies, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.
3. P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Vellakovil village within whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence had fallen. According to him, around 07.00 a.m., P.W.2, a farm worker under the deceased found all the three deceased dead. He came and informed P.W.1 about the same around 07.30 a.m. on 02.10.2012. P.W.1 along with his Assistant and others went to the place of occurrence. He found Mrs.Ramathal [D3] lying dead in front of of the house in a pool of blood with injuries. Then, he he found the dead body of the deceased Mrs.Santhamani [D2] just at the entrance of the house with cut injuries on her forehead, nose, eye, lips and other parts of the body; and D1 was found lying on the west of the house near a Well. There were injuries on his forehead, lower jaw and other parts of the body. A lungi was found tied around the neck of D1. Similarly, a saree was tied around the neck of D2. Immediately, P.W.1 went to Vellakovil Police Station and made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. on 02.12.2012. P.W.24, the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in crime No.422 of 2012 under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.25 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded both the complaint-Ex.P.1 and the FIR-Ex.P.25 to the jurisdictional court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 06.20 p.m. on 02.10.2012. In the mean time, P.W.24, handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
4. P.W.26, taking up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence at 11.30 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P.3] and a rough sketch [Ex.P.27] in the presence of P.W.13 and another witness. Then, he held inquest on the body of D1 at the place where the body was lying, in the presence of panchayatars. Ex.P.28 is the inquest report. He forwarded the body of D1 for postmortem. He recovered some blood stained earth and sample earth from the place where the dead body of D1 was found. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of D3 in the presence of the very same panchayatars at the place where the dead body of D3 was lying. Ex.P.30 is the inquest report. He recovered pieces of blood stained cement floor and sample floor from the place of occurrence under a mahazar and thereafter, he forwarded the dead body of D3 also for postmortem. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of D2 in the presence of the very same panchayatars. Ex.P.31 is the inquest report. He recovered some pieces of blood stained cement floor and sample floor from near the place where the dead body of D2 was lying.
5. P.W.15, Dr.Thirugnanasambandam conducted autopsy on the body of D1 at 09.00 a.m. on 03.10.2012. He found the following injuries:-
"Ante mortem injuries:
1.Lacerated injury 6 cm x 2 cm scalp deep noted on right parietal region.
2. Lacerated injury 14 cm x 1 cm scalp deep noted on left side of the fore head.
3. Lacerated injury 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep noted on right side of the forehead 2 cm about the eye brow.
4. Laceration 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep noted on fronto nasal junction. On dissection the underlying nasal bone found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion.
5. Crescent shaped cut injury 15 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep noted on uppermost part of the neck in its front and both sides. On dissection, the wound cutting the underlying muscle, nerves, vessels and cutting the thyro-hyoid membrane in its middle and extending in to the hypopharyngs.
6. Laceration 1 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep noted on left side lipid the mouth.
7. Laceration 2 x 1 x scalp deep noted on middle of occipital region.
8. Reddish abrasion 22 cm noted on the back of right shoulder.
On dissection of scalp, Skull Dura subscalp contusion reddish in colour 20 cm x 10 cm noted on fronto bi-parietal region and 6 x 4 cm noted on occipital region. Skull fracture (Crack fracture) 14 cm in length noted on right frontal bone. Diffused sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemispheres. Sub dural clot 50 grams noted on right frontal lobe of brain."
Ex.P.10 is the postmortem certificate.
6. Then, from 10.15 a.m. onwards, he conducted autopsy on the body of D3. He found the following injuries:-
"Ante mortem injuries:
1. Transverse cut like laceration 14 cm x 2 x bone deep noted on the forehead just above to both side eye brow.
2. Laceration 2 cm x 5 cm x bone deep noted on right cheek just 1 cm below to lower eye lid. On dissection the underlying bone found fracture (Maxilla) fracture with surrounding tissue contused. (reddish in colour).
3. Vertically oblique laceration 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep noted on middle of the chin, starting from left angle of mouth. On dissection the underlying mandible found fractured with surrounding tissue contused.
4. Nasal bone fractured with surrounding tissue contused.
On dissection of scalp reddish contusion 10 cm x 16 cm noted on frontal region. Skull fracture 12 cm in length noted in bi-frontal bone. Diffused sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted on both cerebral hemispheres. Sub dural clot 10 gms noted on right frontal lobe of chin."
Ex.P.12 is the postmortem certificate.
7. Then, P.W.15, the doctor, conducted autopsy on the body of D2 at 11.30 a.m. on 03.10.2012. He found the following injuries:-
"Ante mortem injuries:
1. Cut like laceration 7 cm x 2.5 cm x scalp deep noted on center of forehead.
2. Cut like laceration 4 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep noted on left side forehead just 1 cm above left eye brow.
3. Laceration 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep noted on left upper lip and left cheek. On dissection the underlying left maxilla fracture with surrounding tissue contused (reddish in colour)
4. Laceration 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep noted on left cheek.
5. Laceration 4 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep noted on right occipital region.
On dissection of scalp, Skull and Dura, Sub-scalp. Sub scalp contusion reddish in colour 20 cm x 6 cm noted on frontal region and 4 x 3 cm noted on right occipital region.
Diffused sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted on both cerebral hemispheres."
Ex.P.14 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that in all the three cases, the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries found on the respective dead body. He further opined that the said injuries could have been caused by a weapon like knife and wooden log and the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.
8. After the autopsies were over, P.W.26, recovered the blood stained clothes from the bodies of D1 to D3 respectively and forwarded the same to the court. On 04.10.2012, he arrested the accused in a textile shop near "Nas Theatre" in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession. In his pocket, he had kept a gold thali chain weighing 48.430 grams [M.O.1] and a silver chain weighing 2.600 grams [M.O.10] and a pair of covering bangles [M.O.4) and also a cash of Rs.3150/- [M.O.8]. He produced all these materials to P.W.26 in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.26 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P.7). In his disclosure statement, the accused further disclosed that he had handed over some more properties to one Mrs.Thasleem. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the house of [P.W.5] where she produced a cell phone with IMEI No.356815023908750 (M.O.3), a silk saree (M.O.5), a blouse (M.O.6), a petticoat (M.O.7), a terricotton shirt (M.O.13) and a lungi (M.O.14). P.W.26 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P.9). Then, on returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. He handed over the material objects also to the court. He made a request to the court to forward some of the material objects for chemical examination.
9. On 17.10.2012, P.W.26 took police custody of the accused on the orders of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. While in custody, at 08.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness, he made yet another voluntary confession in which , he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife and a cycle. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to Kattupalayam and produced knife (M.O.24) and then, he took the police and the witnesses to Nandhi Cycle Stand at Karur Road, Vellakovil and produced the cycle (M.O.25). P.W.26 recovered the same under mahazars Ex.P.19 and 20 respectively. Then, he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the court. On his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination. The chemical analysis report revealed that there were human blood stains on all the material objects including the knife except the sample earth, sample cement plaster pieces and sample tiles. Thereafter, P.W.26 examined the doctor, recorded his statement and collected the medical records. He also collected the cellphone call details of the deceased and on completing the investigation, P.W.26 laid charge sheet against the accused.
10. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 26 witnesses were examined, 33 documents and 32 material objects were marked.
11. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, Vellakovil Village. He has stated that on 02.10.2012 P.W.2 came to his Office at 07.30 a.m. and informed about the fact that D1 to D3 were lying dead at their house. However, on his part to confirm the same, he went to the place of occurrence and after verifying the fact he made a compliant to the police. P.W.2 was a farm worker under the deceased. He has stated that on 02.10.2012, in the usual course, at 06.30 a.m., when he came to the farm of the deceased to attend his work, he found D3 lying in a pool of blood with injuries at the entrance of the house. He further found D2 lying at varanda in a pool of blood with injuries. Then, he found D1 lying dead near well with injuries in a pool of blood. He informed the same to P.W.1.
12. P.W.3 is the daughter of the D1 and D2. According to her, on 02.10.2012, she was informed about the fact that D1 to D3 had been done to death by someone and the dead bodies were found with injuries. On getting such information, she immediately rushed to the place of occurrence where she found D1 to D3 dead. She found that M.Os.1, 3 to 5, 8 and 10 were found missing. Later on she identified the same to the police. P.W.4 has stated that she was informed about the occurrence over phone. He came to the place of occurrence on 04.10.2012. According to him, he gave a sum of Rs.3,150/- to D1 and to keep the same without spending it. P.W.5 is an important witness for the prosecution. The accused had illicit relationship with her. The accused had fixed a house for P.W.5 on rental basis at Palanisamy Nagar in Vellakovil Village. Then, she came down and settled at Coimbatore. The accused used to visit her frequently, stay with her and to have sex with her. On 02.10.2012, according to P.W.5, around 01.00 a.m., the accused came to her house and handed over a Nokia cellphone (M.O.3), a silk saree (M.O.5), a blouse (M.O.6) and a petticoat (M.O.7). According to her, when she inquired him as to where from he got all these properties, he told her that when he was coming to Coimbatore, he witnessed a road accident and at that place, these properties were found lying. He has further stated that he took them and brought the same for the benefit of her. He also gave a blood stained shirt and a blood stained lungi and wanted her to clean the same. There were blood stains in the shirt as well as in the lungi. When P.W.5 inquired the accused, he told her that since he lifted the dead bodies at the accident site, his shirt and lungi were stained with blood. She has identified the cell phone, slik saree, blouse, petticoat, shirt which she cleaned, lungi which she cleaned. According to P.W.5 after the arrest of the accused, he identified P.W.5 and thereafter, she handed over these material objects to the P.W.26.
13. P.W.6 is a friend of the accused. According to him on 01.10.2012 at 07.00 p.m., the accused informed him that he was going to Coimbatore. Again at 09.45 p.m., the accused called him over phone and wanted him to send a dothi and a shirt from his shop. Since P.W.6 was then having his dinner, he asked his brother to go and take a shirt and dhoti from the shop and give them to the accused. Accordingly, his brother gave the dhoti and the shirt to the accused. Thereafter, the accused once called him over phone and informed him that he would come soon to see the ailing wife of P.W.6, but he did not come thereafter. Thereafter, during investigation, P.W.6 took the police and identified the accused. In his presence, according to him, a gold thali chain weighing six sovereigns,covering bangles [2 Nos.] and a cash of Rs.3150/- were recovered. P.W.7 is the brother of P.W.6. He has stated about the same facts.
14. P.W.8 is the resident of Vellakovil. The accused was known to him. On 01.10.2012 around 09.30 p.m., he found the accused on the Coimbatore Main Road at Kattupalayam. When he called the accused, he did not respond. P.W.9 is the second wife of the accused. She has turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 is a resident of Kattupalayam village. He has stated that two months prior to the occurrence, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him. P.W.11 has stated that on 04.10.2012, the accused was sitting in a stall at the Exhibition held at Gandhipuram at Vellakovil. He has stated that at that time the accused was found very sad. When P.W.11 inquired the accused, according to him, the accused told that he had murdered three persons. P.W.12, an Assistant Engineering in the Public Works Department has stated that there was water flowing in the channel near the place of occurrence.
15. P.W.13 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazars and the rough sketches at the place of occurrence by the police and also the recoveries of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.14 has spoken about the confession made by the accused on 04.10.2012 and the recovery of material objects.
16. P.W.15 has spoken about the autopsies conducted on the dead bodies of D1 to D3 and his final opinion regarding the cause of death of D1 to D3. P.W.16 has spoken about the confession made by the accused on 17.10.2012 while in custody and the recoveries of material objects on his disclosure statement. P.W.17, was the then Woman Police Constable attached to Vellakovil Police Station. She has stated that she took the dead body of D3 to the hospital and identified the same to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.18 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused on 17.10.2012 and the consequential recoveries made. P.W.19 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence as instructed by the Inspector of Police. P.W.20 was then a Police Constable attached to Vellakovil Police Station. He has spoken about the dead body of D1 being handed over to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.21 was yet another Woman Police Constable who has spoken about the dead body of D2 being handed over to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.22, an Inspector of Police in the Special Wing at Tirupur has stated about the call details of the cellphone of the deceased. P.W.23 has spoken about the same facts.
17. P.W.24 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.25, a Nodal Officer from Airtel company has stated about the call details. P.W.26 has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.
18. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor did he mark any document on his side. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him accordingly as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, the accused is now before this Court with the present criminal appeal.
19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.
20. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no denial of the fact that D1 to D3 were found dead at 07.00 a.m. on 02.10.2012. There were number of injuries on the bodies of D1 to D3. The doctor, who conducted autopsies, has stated that the death of D1 to D3 was due to mechanical violence resulting in the injuries on the bodies. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of D1 to D3 had occurred before 07.00 a.m. on 02.12.2012.
21. P.W.3, the daughter of D1, has stated about the missing of gold and silver ornaments and the other material objects [M.O.1, 3 to 5, 8 and 10]. P.W.3 has stated that these valuable ornaments were worn by the deceased lastly and the other materials were kept in the house. From the evidence of P.W.3 and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the prosecution has clearly established that the murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same occurrence. Thus, it is inferable that the person who committed robbery had committed murders of D1 to D3 also.
22. Now, the question is, Who is the perpetrator of the crime? Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused had gone to the house of P.W.5 at Coimbatore. P.W.5 is none other than a woman with whom the accused had illicit intimacy. According to her, on 02.10.2012 around 01.00 a.m., the accused came to her house. At that time, he had a cellphone (M.O.3), a silk saree (M.O.5) and a blouse (M.O.6) in his possession. He handed over the same to her [P.W.5] as though they were presentations made by him out of love for her. When she enquired, he told that on his way he witnessed a road accident and at that place these material objects were found lying. He further told that he had brought them only for her. At that time, the accused was found wearing a shirt and lungi with blood stains. He wanted P.W.5 to wash them. Accordingly, she washed them. M.Os.3, 5 and 6 are admittedly the stolen properties. On 02.10.2012 they were found in possession of the accused. The accused has got no explanation to offer. Though P.W.5 has been cross examined, at length, nothing has been elicited from her to doubt her credibility. From out of the possession of these stolen articles in the hands of the accused soon after the commission of theft, presumption which crops up is that it was this accused who committed the murders of D1 to D3 and robbery of the above material objects. Regarding the blood stains on his shirt and lungi also he has got no explanation to offer. This is yet another incriminating evidence against him.
23. Next, P.Ws.6 and 7 have stated that on 01.10.2012 around 07.00 p.m. the accused came to the shop of P.W.6 and then, went to Coimbatore. After some time, he returned, changed his dresses and went away. Though this circumstance is not very weighty, it also gives some credence to the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 has further stated that when police interrogated him, he only told that the accused had gone to Coimbatore and then, he took the police to P.W.5 and identified the accused. That is how, the accused was arrested. He has spoken about the recovery of material objects from the possession of P.W.5. This circumstance also lends assurance to the case of the prosecution.
24. Then comes the recoveries of other material objects. When the accused was arrested, he was found in possession of thali chain (M.O.1), a silver chain (M.O.10), one pair of covering bangles (M.O.4) and cash of Rs.3,150/- (M.O.8). The above ornaments and cash have been proved to be that of the deceased. They were found in possession of the accused on 04.10.2012 at 05.30 p.m. when he was arrested. P.W.14 and the investigating officer (P.W.26) have vividly spoken about the same. There is absolutely no explanation for the possession of M.Os.1, 10 and 4 and also M.O.8 which are the stolen properties. This also gives rise to a presumption that it was this accused who caused the death of D1 to D3 and committed robbery.
25. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on 17.10.2012 on the disclosure statement made by the accused, a knife (M.O.24) and a cycle (M.O.25) were recovered. But, the prosecution has failed to prove the link or nexus between these material objects and the crime. Therefore, the recoveries of these two material objects would not carry any weightage at all.
26. As we have already pointed out, the possession of stolen properties in the hands of the accused gives rise to a presumption that it was this accused who committed robbery and murders. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable. But, the accused had not rebutted the said presumption either by way of direct evidence or by way of any other material on record. By means of the above said unrebutted presumption, the prosecution has conclusively proved that it was this accused who committed murder of D1 to D3 and robbery of the properties belonging to them. Thus, in our considered view, the trial court was right in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 [3 counts] and 392 of IPC.
27. Now, turning to the quantum of sentences, the trial court has imposed only a minimum punishment which is prescribed for murder. Insofar as the offence of robbery is concerned, the sentence imposed by the trial court is proportionate to the gravity of offence. Thus, the sentences imposed by the trial court for the offence of murders and the robbery also do not require any interference at the hands of this court.
28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial court and the appeal deserves only to be dismissed.
29. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial court are hereby confirmed.
Index : yes. [S.N.J.,.] [V.B.D.J,.]
Internet : yes. 11..07..2016
kmk
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, Tirupur
District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station, Tirupur
District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU. J,.
and
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J,.
kmk
Crl.A.No.380 of 2015
11..07..2016
*****