Madras High Court
Subramaniam Alias Ramasamy, Mahadevan ... vs State, Rep. By Station House Officer on 12 July, 2004
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1.The appellants are A-1 to A-3.
2. The first appellant/A-1 Subramaniam alias Ramasamy was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count, for having caused injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2.
3. The second appellant/A-2 Mahadevan was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment, for having caused injuries on P.W.1 and was also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count, for having caused injuries on P.Ws.2 and 3.
4. The third appellant/A-3 Pappathi was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 18 days imprisonment that had already been undergone by her and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for having caused injury on P.W.3 and A-3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
5. The sentences imposed on A-1 and A-2 were directed to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence are the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal.
6. The facts culled out from the records are as follows:
(a) P.W.3 Radhamani is the cousin sister of P.W.1 Palanisamy. The deceased Karuppanna Gounder is the father of P.W.1 Palanisamy. P.W.2 Rajammal is the wife of the deceased Karuppanna Gounder and the mother of P.W.1 Palanisamy. Manickam, who married P.W.3 Radhamani was the brother's son of A-1 Subramaniam alias Ramasamy. A-2 Mahadevan is the son and A-3 Pappathi is the wife of A-1 Subramaniam alias Ramasamy.
(b) Nearly two years prior to the date of occurrence, Manickam, the husband of P.W.3 Radhamani passed away. After his death, P.W.3 Radhamani inherited three acres of land from her husband, which is situated adjacent to the land of A-1, who is her junior father-in-law.
(c) A-1's family asked P.W.3 Radhamani to sell her land to them. However, P.W.3 refused to sell the land. With the co-operation of the deceased family, P.W.3 herself began to cultivate the land. This was not relished by the accused persons.
(d) There is a common cart track between the land belonging to the accused and P.W.3 Radhamani. When the common cart track was used by P.W.1 Palanisamy to take water and sugar crops from the land of P.W.3 and to bring the same to the house of P.W.3, the same was objected to by the accused persons. The accused persons threatened P.W.1 Palanisamy that he should not use the cart track. However, P.W.1 replied that it is their family's duty to help P.W.3 Radhamani. A-1 threatened that if P.W.1's family helps P.W.3, they will face with dire consequences.
(e) The fateful occurrence took place on 7.1.1994. At about 1.00 p.m., P.W.1 went in a bullock cart in order to bring the sugar cane leaves, which were heaped in the land of P.W.4 Chockappa Gounder. A-1, on seeing this, cautioned P.W.1 not to use the common passage again and if he happens to see P.W.1 again using the passage, he would see to it that he is killed.
(f) Unmindful of these words, P.W.1 went again at about 4 O'clock to bring the sugar cane leaves. This time, he came with the deceased Karuppanna Gounder, P.W.2 Rajammal, the mother of P.W.3, P.W.3 Radhamani and others for loading the leaves. On noticing that the sugar cane leaves were being loaded in the cart, which was stationed in the common track, in spite of his warning, A-1 got angered and then, both A-1 and A-2 came with "Kutheeti" and iron pipe (M.Os.1 and 2 respectively). A-3, the wife of A-1 also accompanied them to the scene of occurrence.
(g) When A-1 questioned the deceased, who was standing behind the cart as to why they were using the common track for helping P.W.3 in spite of his objection, the deceased retorted saying that P.W.3 is none else than his daughter and as such, he has got a duty to protect her interest. On hearing these words, A-1 with M.O.1 Kutheeti, stabbed on the chest of the deceased and when P.W.2 Rajammal, the wife of the deceased came near the deceased, A-1 beat P.W.2 with M.O.1 and caused injury on her right thigh. P.W.1 was standing in the cart for loading the sugar cane leaves. On seeing this ghastly sight, P.W.1 Palanisamy got down from the cart and tried to prevent A-1 from beating the deceased and P.W.2, by catching hold of M.O.1 Kutheeti, A-1 had in his hands.
(h) At this juncture, A-2 who was armed with M.O.2 iron pipe, attacked on the hand of P.W.2. P.W.3 Radhamani also came and intervened. Then, A-2 beat P.W.3 on the chest and rib with M.O.2 iron pipe. A-3 caught hold of P.W.3 and A-2 beat on the chest and back of P.W.3 with the hands. This was witnessed by P.W.4 Chockappa Gounder and one Lingappa Gounder, who were standing in their fields. They raised alarm and came to the rescue of the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3. All the accused then ran away from the scene.
(i) The deceased Karuppana Gounder died on the spot. The other injured persons, namely P.Ws.1 to 3 were taken to Anthiyur Government Hospital. P.W.7 Doctor gave treatment to P.Ws.1 to 3 and also issued Exs.P-6 to P-8, their respective wound certificates. P.W.7 Doctor also sent Ex.P-9 intimation to the Police. Thereafter, the injured persons, namely P.Ws.1 to 3 were sent to Erode Government Hospital for further treatment.
(j) P.W.9 Head Constable, on receipt of Ex.P-9 intimation, and on coming to know that the injured persons were sent to Erode Government Hospital, went and recorded a statement from P.W.1 Palanisamy, which is Ex.P-1 and the same was attested by Dr.Gnanasekaran at about 10.00 p.m. on 7.1.1994. A case was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 341, 324, 323 IPC in Crime No.9 of 1994. Message and documents were sent to superior officers and Court.
(k) P.W.12 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence next day (7/8.1.1994) at about 2.00 a.m., and prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch and recovered the bloodstained earth and ordinary earth from the scene of occurrence. He also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and examined the witnesses.
(l) P.W.7 Doctor, on the requisition sent by P.W.12 Inspector of Police, conducted post-mortem and found injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury on the chest region. Ex.P-11 is the post-mortem certificate.
(m) In the meantime, P.W.12 Inspector of Police, on information that M.O.1 Kutheeti and M.O.2 iron pipe were concealed near the house of the accused, went there at about 11.00 a.m. and recovered the same in the presence of P.W.5 Village Assistant. Then, he came to know that on 10.1.1994, A-1 to A-3 surrendered and got into judicial custody. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis and on completion of the investigation, the successor of P.W.12 Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences referred to above.
7. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-18 were filed and M.Os.1 to 18 were marked.
8. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime.
9. The trial Court ultimately convicted A-1 for the offence under Sections 302 IPC for having caused the death of the deceased and 324 (two counts) IPC for having caused injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2; convicted A-2 for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 and 326 IPC, for having caused injury on P.W.1 and under Section 324 IPC (two counts) for having caused injuries on P.Ws.2 and 3 and acquitted A-3 in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and convicted A-3 under Section 323 IPC for having caused injury on P.W.3. They were sentenced as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, all the three accused have filed this appeal.
10. Mr.A.Balaguru, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 to A-3 would take us through the entire evidence and strenuously contend that the evidence of the eye-witnesses would suffer from various infirmities and as such, their evidence has to be discarded, especially when the weapons which were said to have been recovered in front of the house of the accused persons, would not cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased and others. It is also mentioned that the prosecution version in the earliest documents Exs.P-6 to P-8 wound certificates would show that the occurrence had taken place in Thalakuttaipudur, but the prosecution version through Ex.P-1 complaint and other evidence would indicate that the occurrence took place at Kosavankadu, and as such, the place of occurrence has not been established. However, at the end, learned counsel for the appellants stated that even though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is to be considered as true, it cannot be said that A-1 had intention to kill the deceased and at any rate, A-2 cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, since he did not cause any injury on the deceased.
11. On these aspects, we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
12. We have given our careful consideration to the respective contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
13. According to prosecution, on 7.1.1994, when P.W.1 Palanisamy along with others, was crossing the common cart track in a bullock cart after loading the sugar cane leaves, A-1 and A-2 came along with A-3 and objected to the usage of the common cart track, the deceased said that the land belongs to P.W.3 and P.W.3 happens to be his close relative like that of a daughter and hence, they would help her. On hearing these words, A-1 with M.O.1 Kutheeti attacked the deceased and caused injury on the chest and also attacked P.W.2 by causing injury on his hands and right thigh. When P.W.1 intervened, he was also attacked by A-1 and A-2. When P.W.3 also intervened, A-3 came and caught hold of P.W.3 and at that time, A-2 and A-3 attacked P.W.3.
14. The earliest documents in this case, which are Exs.P-6 to P-8 wound certificates of P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively, issued by P.W.7 Doctor, would show that they were attacked by known persons with M.O.1 Kutheeti and M.O.2 iron pipe. Ex.P-1 complaint was recorded by P.W.9 Head Constable from P.W.1 Palanisamy in the Erode Government Hospital at about 10.00 p.m. on the same day, i.e. on 7.1.1994. This reached the learned Magistrate at about 2.00 a.m. on 7/8.1.1994. Ex.P-1 complaint would contain the details of the overt acts attributed to all the accused.
15. The motive in this case is that the deceased and his family members helped P.W.3 Radhamani in cultivating her land, who refused to sell the land to A-1.
16. In consonance with the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint, P.Ws.1 to 3 have given a cogent and clear version with reference to the details of the overt acts attributed to the accused persons. There is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, since nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination to indicate that they have foisted a case against the accused persons. As a matter of fact, their version from the beginning is cogent with reference to the participation of A-1 and A-2, who came with the weapons and attacked the deceased and others.
17. The medical certificates (Exs.P-6 to P-8 wound certificates) issued by P.W.7 Doctor and Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.7 Doctor, would clearly indicate that the injuries were caused on the deceased and other witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with reference to the part played by A-1 and A-2, who caused injuries on the deceased and others.
18. It is contended that A-1 did not have intention to cause injury on the deceased. This contention, in our view, is not tenable for the reason that A-1 used M.O.1 Kutheeti and caused injury on the chest of the deceased. The first external injury contains these particulars as found from Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate:
"A slightly oblique wound with regular margins extends from close to sternum medial end of 4th rib to sixth rib. .. ends about 1 c.m. from the sternum."
So, the nature of injury as mentioned in Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate and the opinion given by P.W.7 Doctor that the injury is necessarily a fatal one, would indicate that the injury was caused by A-1 with the intention to kill the deceased.
19. In respect of A-2, it is contended that he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, as he did not cause any injury on the deceased. This contention also, in our view, may not merit consideration. It is the case of the prosecution that both A-1 and A-2 came with the weapons, one with "Kutheeti" and another with "iron pipe" and caused injuries on the deceased and other witnesses. It is true that A-2 did not cause any injury on the deceased. But the fact remains that when P.W.1 got down from the cart and prevented A-1 from attacking the deceased further, A-2, in order to prevent him from catching hold of "Kutheeti", caused injury on P.W.1 with "iron pipe", which is serious. Therefore, both A-1 and A-2 came with the dangerous weapons and when a person who tried to prevent the other accused from attacking the deceased, was attacked with the dangerous weapon, it goes to show that A-2 also had a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. In other words, this act has been committed by A-2 in order to facilitate A-1 to attack further on the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, in our view, Section 34 IPC is clearly made out as against A-2.
20. Similarly, the opinion of P.W.7 Doctor with reference to the nature of injury caused on P.W.1, would clearly show that he sustained fracture and as such, A-1 and A-2 are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) for having caused injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2 and the same is confirmed and the conviction imposed on A-2 by the trial Court for the offence under Section 326 IPC, is also confirmed.
21. However, we find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the conviction imposed on A-3. Even as per Ex.P-1 complaint, there is no reference about A-3 attacking any one of the witnesses or the deceased. It would simply state that A-3 caught hold of P.W.3. The trial Court correctly acquitted A-3 in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and however convicted A-3 for the offence under Section 323 IPC alone, for having caused injury on P.W.3. In similar way, A-2 also has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (two counts) in respect of the injury caused on P.W.3. In our view, the conviction of A-3 in respect of injury caused on P.W.3 under Section 323 IPC is wrong, because there is no corresponding injury. Further, the overt act attributed to A-3 in respect of the injury caused on P.W.3 has not been mentioned in Ex.P-1 complaint. Therefore, the conviction imposed upon A-3 for the offence under Section 323 IPC in respect of causing injury on P.W.3 is set aside and she is acquitted of the said charge.
22. Thus, the appeal is allowed as far as the third appellant/A-3 is concerned. Since A-3 has been sentenced to pay only fine for the offence under Section 323 IPC, the same, if paid by her, shall be refunded.
23. The appeal is dismissed as far as the first and second appellants/A-1 and A-2 are concerned and the conviction and sentence imposed on (i) A-1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 324 IPC (two counts) and (ii) A-2 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, 326 IPC and 324 IPC (two counts), are confirmed. Since A-1 and A-2 are on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure their custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.