Madras High Court
- vs - on 28 February, 2020
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan, J.Nisha Banu
R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 21.09.2021 Delivered on : 16.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020
and
CRL.A (MD)No.297 of 2020
R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020:
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Alangulam.
(Crime No.69 of 2016) .. Complainant
-vs-
Muthuraj @ Andavar .. Respondent
Referred Trial under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on the judgment of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi in S.C.No.486 of 2016 dated
28.02.2020.
For Complainant :: Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah
Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent :: Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
for Mr.E.Somasundaram
1/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
CRL.A (MD)No.297 of 2020:
Muthuraj @ Andavar .. Appellant/Sole Accused
-vs-
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.69 of 2016) .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi in S.C.No.486
of 2016 dated 28.02.2020.
For Appellant :: Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
for Mr.E.Somasundaram
For Respondent :: Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah
Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.) The reference in R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020, is made by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, 2/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 under Section 366 Cr.P.C., seeking confirmation of capital punishment imposed on the accused. Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020, is filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him and both the matters were listed for together for hearing.
2.The appellant is the sole accused, in S.C.No.486 of 2016, on file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) 302 (3 counts) and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (3 counts), 341, 506(ii) I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo the sentence of death for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 302 (3 count) I.P.C., also sentenced him to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., further sentenced to undergo two years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court referred the matter to this Court seeking confirmation of death sentence, and the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence, filed Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020. 3/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
There are three deceased in this case. The first deceased Petchithai (hereinafter called as D1) is the sister of P.W.1 and the second deceased Mari (hereinafter called as D2) is the daughter of D1 and the third deceased Govindasamy (hereinafter called as D3) is the father of P.W.1.
D3 has two wives and through his first wife he begot two daughters viz., one Muthuduraichi and Petchithai (D1 in this case). P.W.1 is the son of D3 through his second wife. D3 also got two sons and one daughter through the second wife Gomathi Ammal. D1 has got six children and one of her daughter by name Gomathi, is a mentally challenged girl. On 12.02.2016, at about 12.00 noon, the accused in this case has misbehaved with that girl. Hence, D1 along with her husband, P.W.6, has filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam. The above complaint has been treated as Current Paper, and an enquiry was conducted, wherein the Inspector of Police, Alangulam, warned the accused and let him go. With that motive, on 16.02.2016, at about 3.45 p.m., while D1 was returning from her work, the deceased waylaid her and abused her for giving complaint against him, then, attacked her with a bill-hook. At that time, D2, her daughter was grazing cattle nearby, 4/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 rushed there and the accused attacked her with the same bill-hook and caused multiple injuries, both D1 and D2 died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused took his two wheeler and went in search of D3 and found him near the Uykattu Sudalaimadasamy Temple at Nettur Village, and attacked him with the same bill-hook indiscriminately and caused his death.
4.P.W.1, son of D3, and P.W.2, both of them milk vendors, while returning back home, they saw the accused attacking both D1 and D2. When they tried to prevent the accused, he criminally intimidated them, and escaped. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 chased the accused, before they reached him, accused attacked D3 and caused his death. Immediately, P.W.1, along with P.W.6, husband of D1, lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) before the Alangulam Police Station at about 5.00 p.m.
5.P.W.22, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to respondent Police Station, on receipt of the complaint, registered a criminal case in Crime No.69 of 2016, under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sent the First Information Report (Ex.P.32) to the Judicial Magistrate, 5/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 Tenakasi, through P.W.15, Grade - II Police Constable, and also sent copies to the higher officials, including P.W.26, Inspector of Police.
6.P.W.26, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced the investigation and visited the first occurrence place, where D1 and D2 were found dead, and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.5) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.35). Then, he recovered blood stained soil M.O.13(A) and sample soil (M.O.14) in presence of witnesses. At about 7.30 p.m., he visited the second scene of occurrence, where D3 was found dead, and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.8) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.36) and also collected blood stained soil M.O.17 and sample soil (M.O.18) in presence of witnesses. Then he sent the bodies to Tirunelveli Government Hospital. On 17.02.2016, conducted inquest on the dead body of D1, at Government Hospital, Tirunelveli in the presence of Panchayatars and witnesses between 8.00 A.M. to 10.30 A.M. and prepared Ex.P.37, inquest report.
7.P.W.23, Inspector of Police, Surandai Police Station, on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, conducted 6/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 inquest on the dead body of D3 between 8.00 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in the presence of Panchyatars and witnesses and prepared inquest report (Ex.P.33). P.W.25, another Inspector of Police, Surandai Police Station, on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, conducted inquest on the dead body of D2 between 8.00 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report (Ex.P.34). After inquest, P.W.26, sent the bodies of D1 to D3 for postmortem autopsy through P.W.19, P.W.17 and P.W.18, Police Constables, attached to respondent Police Station, respectively.
8.P.W.21, Associate Professor and H.O.D. in Forensic Medicine, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead bodies of D1 to D3 and prepared postmortem reports (Exs.P.27, 29 and 31). He gave his opinion that, D1 to D3 would have died 12 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy and D1 appeared to have died of shock due to heavy cut injury to the region of back of chest and injury No.6 is fatal in nature; D2 appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the cut injury to the region of head and neck and injuries Nos.1, 3 & 5 are fatal in nature and D3 appeared to have died of 7/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 shock and hemorrhage due to the cut injuries to back of abdomen and injuries Nos.11 & 12 are fatal in nature.
9.After postmortem autopsy, P.W.26 recovered the bloodstained dress of all the deceased. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Subsequently, on 19.03.2016, at 2.00 p.m., he arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses and on such arrest, he voluntarily gave a confession admitting his guilt and based on the admissible portion of the confession, he seized a two-wheeler (M.O.2) used by the accused, bill-hook (M.O.1), bloodstained dress (M.Os.11 and 12) and polythene bag (M.O.19), under the cover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He continued the investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the final report.
10.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 (3 counts) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses, marked 40 documents and also produced 19 material objects.
8/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
11.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, is the son of D3, brother of D1 and maternal uncle of D2. He is an eyewitness to the occurrence. According to him, he is a milk vendor and he along with P.W.2, returning home after completing their milk vending. On the way, he saw the accused came in a motorcycle, waylaid D1 and abused her for giving complaint against him, then attacked her with a bill-hook on her hand and hip. At that time, D2, was grazing the cattle nearby, came there, the accused attacked her in the shoulder and cheek and caused her death. When P.W.1 and P.W.2, rushed to the scene of occurrence, he criminally intimated them and escaped in his two-wheeler, stating that he is going to murder D3 also. P.W.1 and P.W.2 chased him in their moped, by that time, accused found D3 near Madasamy Temple and he attacked him with the same bill-hook on his head, neck and other parts indiscriminately. While they were trying to catch him, he ran away from the scene of occurrence. After informing the relatives about the occurrence, P.W.1 along with P.W.6 lodged a complaint before Alangulam Police Station.
9/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
12.P.W.2, another eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He spoke about the earlier occurrence and filing of complaint by D1 against the accused. He along with P.W.1, seen both the occurrence. P.W.3 is a resident of the same village and an eyewitness to the second occurrence, wherein the accused attacked D3. P.W.4, known the accused and deceased, turned hostile. P.W.5, also resident of the same village, turned hostile. P.W.6 is the husband of D1 and father of D2. He spoke about the earlier occurrence, wherein the accused misbehaved with his daughter and also filing of complaint by D1 and he is also an eyewitness to the present occurrence. P.W.7 spoke about the motive for the occurrence.
13.P.W.8, is a daughter of D1, she is only a hear say witness. P.W.9, a neighbour of the deceased, she is the witness to the earlier occurrence, wherein the accused has misbehaved with Gomathi and she informed the same to D1. Thereafter, D1 filed a complaint before the respondent police. P.W.10 turned hostile. P.W.11, Village Administrative Officer is a witness to the arrest, confession of accused and also recovery of M.O.1 – bill hook, M.O.2 – Two Wheeler and bloodstained Lungi and shirt of accused (M.Os.11 and 12). P.W.12, witness to the Observation Mahazar 10/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 and Rough Sketch and also bloodstained soil. P.W.13 is another witness to the observation mahazar and rough sketch.
14.P.W.14, Grade – II Police Constable, handed over the material objects before the forensic lab. P.W.15, another Grade – II Police Constable, handed over the express F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Court on 17.02.2016 at 3.15 a.m. P.W.16, Head Constable, identified the dead body of D1, for postmortem and also handed over the dress of D1 to the investigating officer. P.W.17, Head Constable, identified the dead body of D2, for postmortem and also handed over the dress of D2 to the investigating officer. P.W.18, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, identified the dead body of D3 for postmortem, after that he handed over the dress of D3 to the investigating officer. P.W.19, Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, received the material objects and sent them for chemical analysis. P.W.20, Scientific Officer in Forensic Lab, Tirunelveli, examined the bloodstained material objects and given Chemical Analysis Report (Ex.P.24) and Serology Report (Ex.P.25), and found the blood group of D1 and D2 is 'AB' and the blood group of D3 is 'B' and M.Os.11 and 12, Lungi and shirt recovered from the deceased 11/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 contained 'AB' blood group.
15.P.W.21, Associate Professor and H.O.D. In Forensic Medicine, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of D1 and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.27), which reads as follows:
“The body was first seen by the undersigned at 12.50 PM on 17.02.2016. Its condition then was rigor mortis present all over the body.
Postmortem commenced at 12.50 PM on 17.02.2016. APPEARANCES FOUND AT THE POSTMORTEM:
Moderately nourished body of a female. Finger and toe nails pale.
THE FOLLOWING ANTEMORTEM INJURIES WERE NOTED:
1) Abrasion of size 1.5 x 1.5cm seen in left cheek.
2) A curved oblige cut injury of size 8x1x1-2cm seen in inner aspect of right hand. It is deeper in 1 st web space. It cuts underlying soft tissues, vessels, nerves and 2nd metacarpal home.
3) Abrasion of size 2x1cm in front of middle of right leg.
4) A cut injury of size 1x0.5x0.5cm seen in back of left thumb. It cuts underlying soft tissues.
5) Abrasion of size 0.5x0.5cm in outer aspect of back 12/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 of left elbow.
6) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 20x5cmxCaviy deep seen in right side of middle of back of chest. It extents from 9cm below right axilla to 28cm below right shoulder in the back of chest. It cuts underlying soft tissues and 5 to 10ribs in right side in their outer aspect in an oblique manner along with intercoastal muscles and vessels and nerves.
OTHER FINDINGS:
Heart: Normal and coronary vessels patent. Hyoid bone: Intact.
Stomach: Contains 50gms of partially digested cooked rice particles, no specific smell and Mucosa pale. Right Lung: Found Collapsed.
Left Lung Liver, Spleen, Kindneys & Brain : Normal c/s pale.
Small intestine: Contains 50gms of partially digested cooked rice particles, no specific smell and mucosa pale. Bladder: Contains 20ml urine.
Uterus: Normal c/s empty.
Blood collected for grouping & typing.
OPINION AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH:
THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF SHOCK DUE TO HEAVY CUT INJURY TO THE 13/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 REGION OF BACK OF CHEST. Injury No.6 is fatal in nature. Death would have occurred 12 to 24hrs prior to autopsy” He was of the opinion that the deceased would have died 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy, due to heavy cut injury to the region of back of chest and injury No.6 is fatal in nature.
16.P.W.21, then conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of D2 and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.29), and found following injuries:
“The body was first seen by the undersigned at 1.30 PM on 17.02.2016. Its condition then was rigor mortis present all over the body.
Postmortem commenced at 1.30 PM on 17.02.2016. APPEARANCES FOUND AT THE POSTMORTEM:
Moderately nourished body of a female. Finger and toe nails pale.
THE FOLLOWING ANTEMORTEM INJURIES WERE NOTED:
1) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 10x2cmxCavity deep seen in left parietal region. Its lower end lies 5cm above left ear. It cuts underlying scalp, left parietal bone, dura mater and left parietal lobe of brain of 14/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 size 6x1x1cm.
2) A curved oblique gapping cut injury of size 4x1x1cm seen in left cheek. It cuts underlying soft tissues.
3) A curved oblique gapping cut injury of size 10x2x4cm lies in front of right side and middle of neck. It cuts underlying soft tissues, vessels and trachea.
4) A curved oblique heavy cut injury of size 10x7x5cm seen in left shoulder. It cuts underlying soft tissues.
5) A curved oblique heavy cut injury of size 8x7x4cm seen in left side of upper part of neck extending from middle of neck to back of neck. It cuts underlying soft tissues, vessels, nerves, cervical vertebra and spinal cord.
6) An incised wound of size 0.5x0.1x0.1cm seen in right side of chest 1cm below right clavicle.
7) An incised wound of size 2x0.5x0.2cm seen in back of right forearm near right elbow.
8) An oblique gapping cut injury of size 8x3x2cm seen in back of middle of right forearm.
9) A scratch abrasion of length [5cm seen in inner aspect of middle of right thigh.
OTHER FINDINGS:
Heart: Normal and coronary vessels patent. Hyoid bone: Intact.
Stomach: Contains 20ml of mucosal fluid, no specific smell and mucosa pale.15/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 Lungs, Liver, Spleen & Kindneys : Normal c/s pale. Small intestine: Contains 20ml of yellow colour fluid, no specific smell and mucosa pale.
Bladder: Contains 20ml urine.
Uterus: Normal c/s empty.
Brain: Cut injury present in brain c/s pale. Blood collected for grouping & typing.
OPINION AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH:
THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF SHOCK AND HAEMORRHAGE DUE TO HEAVY CUT INJURIES TO THE REGION OF HEAD AND NECK. Injuries No.1, 3 & 5 are fatal in nature. Death would have occurred 12 to 24hrs prior to autopsy” He was of the opinion that the deceased would have died 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy, due to heavy cut injury to the region of head and neck and injuries Nos.1, 3 & 5 are fatal in nature.
P.W.21, also conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of D3 and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.31), and found following injuries:
“The body was first seen by the undersigned at 2.10 PM on 17.02.2016. Its condition then was rigor mortis present all over the body.
Postmortem commenced at 2.10 PM on 17.02.2016.16/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 APPEARANCES FOUND AT THE POSTMORTEM: Moderately nourished body of a male. Finger and toe nails pale.
THE FOLLOWING ANTEMORTEM INJURIES WERE NOTED:
1) An oblique gapping cut injury of size 4x1cmxBone deep lies in left parietal region. It lies 8cm above left ear. It cuts underlying soft tissues and outer table of left parietal bone.
2) An oblique gapping cut injury of size 5x1cmxBone deep lies 1.5cm below injury no.1. It cuts underlying scale.
3) An oblique incised wound of size 5x0.5x0.2cm seen in left side of neck. It cuts underlying skin.
4) A horizontal gapping cut injury of size 4x1x2cm lies in front of middle of neck. It cuts underlying soft tissues and trachea.
5) A curved oblique cut injury of size 8x2x1 to 2cm lies in front of upper part of right shoulder. It is deeper in its outer end and having a tail of 4cm in its lower end. It cuts underlying soft tissues.
6) A curved oblique cut injury of size 6x1x0.5 to 1.5cm seen in back of upper part of right shoulder. It is deeper in its inner end and having a tail of length 4cm in its outer end it cuts underlying soft tissues and right scapula.
7) A cut injury of size 0.5x0.2x0.2cm seen in back of right 3rd finger.17/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
8) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 18x4cmxCavity deep seen in right side of hip. It cuts underlying soft tissues and upper part of right hip bone. Coils of small intestine exposed out through the rent.
9) A scratch abrasion of length 7cm seen in upper part of back of left shoulder.
10) A curved vertical gapping heavy cut injury of size 11x3x1 to 4cm seen in back of left shoulder. It cuts underlying soft tissues and left scapula.
11) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 20x2x4 to 8cm seen in lower part of right side of back of abdomen. Its right end has 2cm behind injury No.9. It cuts underlying soft tissues lumbar vertebra, spinal card and vessels.
12) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 20x2x3 to 7cm lies in middle and left side of lower part of back abdomen. Its medial end lies 1.5cm above injury No.
11. It cuts underlying soft tissues lumbar vertebra and spinal card.
13) A curved oblique cut injury of size 5x1x1 to 3cm seen in inner aspect of middle of right thigh. It cuts underlying soft tissues.
14) A curved oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 18x6cmxCavity deep seen in left side of hip. It cuts underlying soft tissues. Coils of small intestine exposed out 18/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 through the rent. Its outer end lies 8cm below outer end of injury no.12.
15) A cut injury of size 3x1x1cm seen in inner aspect of left hand near to 2nd web space.
OTHER FINDINGS:
Heart: Normal and coronary vessels patent. Hyoid bone: Intact.
Stomach: Contains 50gms of partially digested cooked rice particles, no specific smell and Mucosa pale. Lungs, Liver, Spleen, left kidney & Brain : Normal c/s pale.
Right kidney: Renal cyst present.
Small intestine: Contains 50gm of partially digested cooked rice particles. no specific smell and mucosa pale. Bladder: Contains 20ml of urine.
Blood collected for grouping & typing.
OPINION AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH:
THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF SHOCK AND HAEMORRHAGE DUE TO HEAVY CUT INJURIES TO BACK OF ABDOMEN. Injuries no. 11 and 12 are fatal in nature. Death would have occurred 12 to 24hrs prior to autopsy” He was of the opinion that the deceased would have died 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy, due to shock and hemorrhage due to heavy cut injuries 19/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 to back of abdomen and injuries Nos.11 & 12 are fatal in nature.
17.P.W.22, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the F.I.R. based on the complaint of P.W.1 at 5.00 p.m. on 16.02.2016. P.W.23, Inspector of Police, Surandai Police Station, conducted inquest on the dead body of D3 and filed Inquest Report (Ex.P.33). P.W.24 is the photographer, who took photographs in the scenes of occurrence. P.W.25, Inspector of Police, Oothumalai Police Station, conducted inquest on the dead body of D2 and filed Inquest Report (Ex.P.34). P.W.26, Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, conducted inquest on the dead body of D1 and filed Inquest Report (Ex.P.37). He also examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the accued and recovered the material objects.
After completion of investigation, filed the final report.
18.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false and he has examined one Velladurai, who is known to the accused, but he turned hostile.
19.Having considered all the above evidences, the trial Court 20/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 found the accused/appellant guilty under the above said charges and accordingly sentenced him as detailed in the second paragraph of this judgment. The trial Court referred the matter to this Court seeking confirmation of the death sentence on the appellant under Section 366 Cr.P.C. and the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence filed Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020.
20.Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, would submit that, the motive for the occurrence is that, D1's daughter one Gomathi is a mentally challenged girl, the accused is a known criminal, he misbehaved with Gomathi, for which, D1 has given a complaint before the respondent police, wherein an enquiry was conducted, and the accused was warned and let off. With that motive, on 16.02.2016, at about 3.45 p.m., while D1 was returning from work, he waylaid her and attacked her indiscriminately. D2 was also present there shepherding the cattle, and the accused also attacked her with the same weapon and caused her death. Thereafter, he searched for D3, who was standing near a temple, and attacked him and caused his death also.
21/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
21.P.W.1 is the son of D3 and P.W.2 is a friend of P.W.1, are milk vendors. While they were returning from work, saw the accused attacking D1 and D2. When they tried to got him, he criminally intimidated them and ran away, challenging that he will finish of D3 also. So, they chased him in a moped, whereas the deceased went in a motorcycle and attacked D3. P.W.3 is a resident of the said village, witnessed the occurrence, the testimony of all the eyewitnesses are consistent, and reliable, the medical evidence also corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
22.So far as the motive is concerned, P.W.6 and P.W.9 spoke about the same. P.W.6 is the husband of D1. He spoke about the earlier occurrence, where the accused misbehaved with his mentally challenged daughter and the complaint given by D1, before Alangulam Police Station. P.W.9 is a neighbour of the deceased. He is an eyewitness to that occurrence, where he saw the accused misbehaved with the daughter of D1. With those evidence, the prosecution has proved the motive.
23.The first occurrence took place on 16.02.2016 at 3.45 p.m. and 22/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 the second occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m. Immediately, a complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 at 5.00 p.m., there is no delay in registering the F.I.R. The F.I.R. also reached the Court on the very same night. The weapon used for the occurrence has been recovered on the confession of the accused. The bloodstained dress of the accused were also recovered on the confession of the accused. The Serology Report also confirms that the bloodstains found in the dress worn by the accused match with the blood group of D1 and D2. With those evidence prosecution clearly established that it is this accused, attacked all the three deceased and caused their death. The trial Court considering those materials in a proper perspective convicted the appellant and it warrants no interference by this Court.
24.So far as the death penalty awarded against the accused, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the gravity of the offence and the diabolical act of the accused, killing three persons brutally, the accused is a menace to the society. It is an exceptional case falls within the category of “rarest of rare case”, imposing a lesser punishment will be inadequate. Considering these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly awarded death sentence and the conviction and 23/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 sentence imposed by the trial Court be necessarily confirmed.
25.Mr.S.Sivasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that all the eyewitnesses in this case are closely related to the deceased and they are all interested witnesses, in the absence of corroboration by any independent witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted based on their interested testimony.
26.The learned counsel would further submit that, according to prosecution, D1 was returning from work along with some co-workers, however, none of the co-worker has been examined. The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful, there is no occasion for them to be present at the scene of occurrence, and P.W.3 is only a chance witness, he has been planted by the prosecution. That apart, there are material contradictions in their evidence, and their evidence are unreliable, the trial Court ought not to have believed them to convict the accused.
27.The learned counsel further submitted that the arrest of the accused and recovery was not proved by the prosecution. No blood stain 24/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 has been found in the weapon, alleged to have been used by the accused, which creates a strong doubt. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which is very crucial in this case. The complaint alleged to have been given by D1, against the accused was not produced before this Court, and the investigating officer also admitted that no F.I.R. has been registered on the complaint given by D1. P.W.9, who spoke about that occurrence also turned hostile, and she disowned the same in the cross-examination. There is a long delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court, even though the F.I.R. said to have been registered at 5.00 p.m. the same despatched to the Court on 17.02.2016 at 3.45 a.m., after a long delay, and there is no proper explanation for the delay, which creates a strong suspicion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. That apart, there was also long delay in sending the material objects to the Court. Considering those circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court without considering the same convicted the appellant.
28.On the sentence awarded against the accused, the learned counsel would submit that, the instant case will not fall under the 25/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 category of 'rarest of rare case', which warrants death penalty. The accused is an young man and he has got a chance to reform and rehabilitation. He cannot be said to be a menace to the society, he has no bad antecedents. All those mitigating circumstances overweighing the aggravating circumstances and the trial Court ought not to have awarded death penalty. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on a number of judgments, which will be referred in the later part of the judgment.
29.We have considered the rival submissions and the evidence produced carefully.
30.It is a case of triple murder. The motive for the murder was that one Gomathi, a mentally challenged girl, is the daughter of D1 and residing with her. The accused belongs to the same village and known to the deceased's family. Four days prior to the occurrence, the said Gomathi was alone in the house, and the accused tried to misbehave with her, which was seen by P.W.9, a neighbour to the deceased, and informed the same to D1. Thereafter, D1 has given a complaint against the accused 26/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 in the respondent Police station. According to the prosecution, the said complaint was treated as Current Petition, and an enquiry was conducted, the accused was called and warned not to indulge in any such activities in future. Being agitated over the same, the accused said to have caused the death of all the three deceased.
31.There are four eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the son of D3, and brother of D1. He is said to be a milk vendor. According to him, while he was returning back home in a TVS moped along with P.W.2, another milk vendor, he saw the accused, came in a two wheeler motorcycle and waylaid D1, who was returning from work, abused her and attacked her indiscriminately. D2, daughter of D1, was also available in the scene of occurrence and the accused also attacked her and caused her death. While P.W.1 and P.W.2, were trying to catch him, he escaped in a two-wheeler, and challenged that he will finish of P.W.1's father also. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 chased the accused in their moped. D3 was standing near a temple, and the accused attacked him and caused his death. P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3, a resident of the same village, who was present near the scene of second occurrence, saw the accused 27/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 attacking D3 in the stomach, first, then all over the body indiscriminately. While all the three witnesses were trying to apprehend him, he criminally intimidated them and escaped from the scene of occurrence.
32.According to P.W.1, the accused attempted to cut D1, while she evaded the attack she sustained injury in the right hand palm. Thereafter, he attacked her in the left hip, then attacked D2 in the head, neck, shoulder and cheek. Then, he attacked D3 in the stomach, while he evaded the attacked, he attacked him on his head, knee, shoulder, thigh and hip. P.W.2 also spoke in unison with P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are consistent regarding the overtact. Likewise, P.W.3, is also an independent witness, the eyewitness to the second occurrence. His testimony also consistent with that of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
33.Even though P.W.6, husband of D1, also said to have seen the occurrence, but his presence in the scene of occurrence is doubtful, none of the eyewitnesses have stated about the presence of P.W.6 in the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W2 are consistent and there is no discrepancy or inconsistency in their evidence. P.W.3, belongs to the same village, hence the presence of all the eyewitnesses cannot be 28/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 doubted.
34.The first occurrence has taken place at about 3.45 p.m. and within 15 minutes the second occurrence has taken place around 4.00 p.m. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station along with P.W.6 and gave a complaint at about 5.00 p.m. within one hour of the occurrence. There is no delay in filing the complaint and the F.I.R. was also despatched to the concerned Court in the very same night. Hence, the chance of false implication of accused is ruled out.
35.So far as the motive is concerned, filing of complaint by D1 against the accused is said to be the cause for the murder. Admittedly, no F.I.R. was registered on the complaint given by D1. However, it was treated as Current Paper and an enquiry was conducted. P.W.26, Inspector of Police, has also clearly deposed about the enquiry conducted by him, wherein D1 and the accused were enquired and the accused gave a statement tendering apology, and assured that he will not indulge in such activities in future, accordingly, the matter was dropped. The perusal of the records, it could be seen that both the complaint given by D1, and the statement of the accused forms part of the records, unfortunately, those 29/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 documents were not marked before the Court. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, those documents are part of the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the same were served upon the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. along with the final report. Thus, the materials available on record clearly show that four days prior to the occurrence, the accused misbehaved with the girl, which was resulted in the complaint.
36.P.W.9, a neighbour of D1, is an eyewitness to the motive occurrence. According to her, she heard the noise of Gomathi from her house, she went there and saw the accused misbehaving with Gomathi, and informed the same to D1, thereafter D1, gave the complaint. P.W.6, husband of D1, also spoke about that occurrence and the complaint, with those materials, the prosecution has clearly proved the motive. It is settled law that when eyewitnesses spoke about the occurrence, the motive become insignificant. However, in the instant case, the prosecution proved the motive, on that score, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused stands rejected. 30/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
37.The next circumstance is arrest and recovery. The occurrence has taken place on 16.02.2016, the accused was absconding and he was arrested only on 19.03.2016 after one month. On such arrest, he voluntarily gave a confession in the presence of P.W.11, Village Administrative Officer, and based on his disclosure statement, M.O.1 – bill-hook, M.O.2 – two-wheeler, M.O.11 – Lungi, M.O.12 – Shirt, were recovered, and sent for chemical examination along with the bloodstained dress of the deceased. P.W.10, a Scientist in Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli, examined the bloodstained material objects and found that the blood group of D1 and D2 is 'AB' group and the blood group of D3 is 'B' group, and M.O.11 and M.O.12, bloodstained dress of the accused, contained 'AB' group blood, which matching with that of D1 & D2. The Chemical Analysis Report and Serology Report were marked as Exs.P.24 and 25. P.W.20, was also examined to prove the same, and his evidence was not challenged in the cross-examination.
38.Now turning to the medical evidence, P.W.21, Associate 31/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 Professor and H.O.D. in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, conducted postmortem autopsy on all the three deceased and has given postmortem reports as referred to above. Postmortem report of D1, Ex.P.27, reveals that D1 sustained as many as 6 injuries, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborates it. Ex.P.29, postmortem report of D2 reveals that, she sustained as many as 9 injuries, which also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P.31, postmortem report of D3, which states D3, sustained as many as 15 injuries, out of which 13 injuries are cut injuries. P.Ws.1 to 3 testimony almost corroborates those injuries. Thus, the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses corroborates the medical evidence.
39.The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused is regarding the weapon used by the accused. It is true that there is no bloodstain found in the bill-hook, M.O.1. But the weapon was recovered after one month of the occurrence, and there is also a possibility the accused washed the bloodstains in the bill-hook. P.W.21, Doctor, clearly stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are likely to be caused by M.O.1 – bill-hook. As the weapon has been recovered on the confession of accused, which is in his exclusive knowledge, and the 32/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 recovery also proved by the prosecution and we find no reason to doubt it. That apart M.O.11 and M.O.12, the dress worn by the accused, which were also recovered on the confession of the accused, contained the blood group of D1 and D2, which clearly prove that it is only this accused has attacked all the deceased and caused their death.
40.Considering all those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused.
41.The next question arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in imposing death sentence on the appellant/accused. The law is well settled that life imprisonment is the rule to which the death penalty is the exception. The death sentence must be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be altogether inappropriate punishment, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. While imposing the Death Sentence, the Court should consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and after giving full 33/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 weightage to the mitigating circumstances, the Court should strike a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstance before imposing the capital punishment.
42.A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684, indicated the guidelines for imposing death sentence and evaluated the principle of 'rarest of rare case', for imposing death sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has broadly explained the aggravating circumstance and the mitigating circumstance in paragraphs 202 and 206 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
"202. Drawing upon the penal statutes of the States in U.S.A. framed after Furman v. Georgia [33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972)], in general, and clauses 2 (a),
(b), (c) and (d) of the Penal Code, 1860 (Amendment) Bill passed in 1978 by the Rajya Sabha, in particular, Dr Chitale has suggested these “aggravating circumstances”:
“Aggravating circumstances: A court may, however, in the following cases impose the penalty of death in its discretion:34/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
(a) if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or
(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed—
(i) while such member or public servant was on duty; or
(ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant; or
(d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code.” *** "206. Dr Chitale has suggested these mitigating factors:35/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 “Mitigating circumstances.—In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into account the following circumstances:
(1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above.
(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.
(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.” 36/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020
43.Following the same in Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the circumstances for awarding death sentence, as follows:
"38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentences arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case:
(i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the 'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised 37/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised."
44.According to Bachan Singh case (cited supra) the three major mitigating circumstances are (i) age of the accused; (ii) the probability that the accused would not commit any criminal act which constitute a continuing threat to society; and (iii) the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The guiding principles laid down in Bachan Singh case (cited supra) as well as Machhi Singh case (cited supra) have been consistently followed till date by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts.
45.It is also equally settled that the question of awarding sentence should not be determined with reference to the volume and the character 38/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 of the evidence adduced or nature of proof. While imposing punishment, the Court should consider the circumstance of the case with particular reference to any extenuating circumstances, which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime.
46.In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
".....The question of sentence has to be determined, not with reference to the volume or character of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, but with reference to the fact whether there are any extenuating circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime. If the court is satisfied that there are such mitigating circumstances, only then, it would be justified in imposing the lesser of the two sentences provided by law. In other words, the nature of the proof has nothing to do with the character of the punishment. The nature of the proof can only bear upon the question of conviction - whether or not the accused has been proved to be guilty. If the court comes to the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the accused, and conviction follows, the process of proof is at an end. The question as to what punishment should 39/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 be imposed is for the court to decide in all the circumstances of the case with particular reference to any extenuating circumstances. But the nature of proof, as we have indicated, has nothing to do with the question of punishment. In this case, there are no such extenuating circumstances which can be legitimately urged in support of the view that the lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Penal Code, should meet the ends of justice....."
Keeping the above principles in mind, now let us consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the instant case.
47.The accused was aged about 32 years at the time of the occurrence. Even though it is stated that he had bad antecedents, the prosecution failed to establish the same. There is no material available on record to show that the accused will be a continuing threat to the society. The accused has a chance to reform and rehabilitated, and the instant case not falls short of 'rarest of rare cases' category and we are of the considered view that the mitigating circumstances outfaced the aggravating circumstances.
48.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. 40/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767] has held that, if the Court is of the view that the case fall short of rarest of rare category requiring death sentence, but on the other hand imposing a life imprisonment is also crossly disproportionate and inadequate, the Court can commute the death sentence and impose the punishment of an actual term with or without remission. The above said judgement has been followed in Ravishankar v. State of M.P. [(2019) 9 SCC 689], which reads as follows:
46. Ostensibly to tackle such a conundrum between awarding death or mere 14-20 years of imprisonment, in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767], a three-Judge Bench of this Court evolved a hybrid special category of sentence and ruled that the Court could commute the death sentence and substitute it with life imprisonment with the direction that the convict would not be released from prison for the rest of his life. After acknowledging that: (SCC p. 790, para 51) “the truth of the matter is that the question of death penalty is not free from the subjective element and the confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by this Court depends a good deal on the personal predilection of the Judges constituting the Bench”, this Court went on to hold as follows: (SCC pp.41/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 804-05, paras 92-94) “92. The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may find, as in the present appeal, that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. What then should the Court do? If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the Court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. A far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court i.e. the 42/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. It needs to be emphasised that the Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.
93. Further, the formalisation of a special category of sentence, though for an extremely few number of cases, shall have the great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible, really in the rarest of rare cases. This would only be a reassertion of the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Panjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] besides being in accord with the modern trends in penology.
94. In the light of the discussions made above we are clearly of the view that there is a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be.”
49.Considering those guiding principles, we are of the view that 43/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 imposing death sentence does not warrant in the case, on the other hand imposing life imprisonment, subject to remission, is also inadequate. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to commute the death sentence into Rigourous Imprisonment for 25 years, without any remission, for each counts.
50. In the result,
(a) The conviction of the appellant/accused under Sections 302 (3 counts), 341 and 506(ii) IPC is confirmed.
(b) The sentence imposed for the offences under Sections 341 and 506 (ii) IPC are also confirmed.
(c) The death sentence imposed for the offence under Section 302 (3 counts) IPC is commuted and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 25 years for each count (three counts), without any statutory remission or commutation, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count and in default to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.
(d)The sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 302 (3 counts), 341 and 506 (ii) IPC shall run concurrently. The sentence 44/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 already undergone shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
(e)As ordered by the trial Court, after the expiry of appeal time or appeal M.Os.1, 3 to 13(A) and 14 to 19 are ordered to be destroyed, M.O.2 is ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.O.13 is ordered to be retained with the case records.
(f)The recommendation of the trial Court under Section 357 A(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. for verification under clause 5 of the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013, for awarding adequate compensation is confirmed.
51.With the above modification, Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 is partly allowed and the reference in R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 is answered accordingly.
(V.B.D.J.,) (J.N.B.,J)
16.11.2021
Internet: yes/no
Index : yes/no
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
45/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 46/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Crl.A.(MD) No.297 of 2020 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and J.NISHA BANU, J.
sj To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
2. The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Alangulam.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Copy to The Section Officer, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-delivery Judgment in R.T.(MD) No.2 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No.(MD) No.297 of 2020 Delivered on 16.11.2021 47/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis