BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21/07/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN CRL.A.No.509 of 1997 Ramasamy ... Appellant vs State by Sub-Inspector of Police Sudamalai Kundu Police Station Sudamalai Kundu Cr. No.131 of 1995 ... Respondent Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.89 of 1996 dated 1.11.1996 !For Appellant ... Mr.T.R.Subramanian ^For Respondents ... Mr.N.Senthurpandian, A.P.P. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Challenging a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Madurai, made
in S.C.No.89/96, the sole accused has brought forth this appeal.
2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
thus:
(a) P.W.1 was working as Supervisor in the Noon Meal Centre attached to
Bharathadevi Primary School. The deceased Angammal, was also employed there.
On 5.9.1995 at about 12.30 P.M., the accused came over there and asked the said
Angammal to give the remainder of the food after the children were served. She
refused to give the same. Then, he left the place expressing his anguish. The
next day i.e., on 6.9.1995, at about 11.15 A.M., Angammal went to the nearby
thope to get water. Even after some time, she did not return. P.W.1 went in
search of her. In the nearby thope, he saw the accused beating the deceased
with a stick, M.O.1, and when she fell down, the accused took a stone, M.O.2,
and dashed on her head. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, Angammal succumbed to the bleeding injuries at the spot. P.W.4 also
witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 gave a report, Ex.P1, to P.W.7, the Head
Constable, attached to Kadamalai Kundu Police Station. The accused was also
produced before the Police Station. On receipt of Ex.P1, the complaint, P.W.7
registered a case in Crime No.131/95 under Sec.302 of I.P.C. The printed First
Information Report, Ex.P7, was sent to Court.
(b) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., P.W.9, the Inspector of Police,
Kandamanur Circle, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection of the place of
occurrence and prepared Ex.P5, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P12, the rough
sketch. He recovered M.Os.1 to 5 under a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted
inquest on the dead body of Angammal in the presence of witnesses and
panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P13, the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead
body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P2, for
the purpose of autopsy.
(c) P.W.2, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital,
Aundipatti, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Angammal and found the following injuries:
“1) A diffuse contusion over the whole of the Left side of the face extending
from the Left Temporal region down to the Left lower face present measuring 13
cm x 10 cm present. Over the contusion the following injuries are present.
a) A lacerated injury over the Left temporal region measuring 3cm x 2cm x 1cm
present. Margins are irregular.
b) A vertical abrasion over the left check measuring 6cm x 3cm present.
On dissection of the above Injury No.1 Subcutaneous blood Collection present
Muscles over the area are congested Left Maxillae left Temporal bone Left
parietal bone, Left Frontal bone Fractured its Multiple pieces Rt. Temporal bone
crack Fracture, present over the base of the skull. Crack fracture present over
Anterior Cranial fossa and middle Cranial fossa about 200ml of subdural
Haemaboma present. Left Frontal to be of Cerebral Hemisphere injured and
congested with intra-cerebral Haemorrhage.
2) An oblique contusion over the Lateral side of the left Lower thigh measuring
14cm x 2cm.
3) An oblique contusion over the middle of the lateral side of the left leg
measuring 2cm x 3cm.
4) A contusion over the lower 1/3 of the Anterior aspect of the Left leg
measuring 3cm x 2cm.
5) A contusion over the lateral side of the Left upper arm deltoid region
measuring 6cm x 2cm.
6) A lacerated injury over the back of the left middle forearm measuring 3cm x
2cm x 1cm.
7) A contusion over the Right upper arm deltoid region measuring 3cm x 2cm.
8) An abrasion over the Right Cheek measuring 2cm x 2cm.
9) A lacerated injury over the middle of the lower lip 1cm x 1cm x 0.5cm.’
The Doctor issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, with his opinion that the
deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to
vital organ-brain vide No.1 about 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem.
(d) Pending investigation, the accused, who was produced before P.W.7, the
Head Constable, was arrested and sent for judicial remand. All the material
objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, were
subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in Ex.P10, the Chemical Analyst’s
report, and Ex.P11, the Serologist’s report. On completion of investigation,
the Investigator filed the final report.
3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and a charge under Sec.302
of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant/accused. In order to substantiate
the charge, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and relied on 13 exhibits and 7
material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution,
the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to
the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined.
The learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments advanced, found the
appellant/accused guilty as per the charge and awarded the life imprisonment,
which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia would submit
that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 who, according to the prosecution, were
eyewitnesses in the case, was discrepant; that the medical evidence also did not
support the prosecution case; that even assuming that the prosecution has proved
the fact that he has caused the death of the deceased by dashing her head with a
stone, the act of the accused would not fall within the ambit of murder; but, it
was one culpable homicide not amounting to murder; that the appellant was very
hungry; that when he made a demand for the remaining food which were left by the
school children, the deceased refused to give him; that he got provoked by that;
that due to the same, he beat the deceased with the stick and threw the stone on
her; that apart from that, by doing so, he would not have expected that she
would die; that under the circumstances, the act of the accused was only due to
provocation, and neither intentional nor deliberate; that it was also not his
desire to bring forth her death; and that the Court has to consider the same and
give the benefit to him in that regard.
5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contentions.
6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7.In the instant case, one Angammal died out of homicidal violence which
fact is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.2, the Doctor, who
conducted autopsy, and also through his postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, issued by
him, wherein it is clearly stated that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due
to the injuries sustained. This fact that she died out of homicidal violence is
not disputed by the appellant either before the trial Court or before this
Court, and hence, it could be safely recorded that Angammal died out of
homicidal violence.
8.In order to substantiate the accusation made against the
appellant/accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 4 as
eyewitnesses. No inconsistency worth-mentioning is noticed by the Court in their
evidence. They have narrated the incident thoroughly, and their evidence
inspired the confidence of the Court. It is not a case where there was an
existing enmity between the deceased and the eyewitnesses, which was shown.
Hence, their evidence could be safely accepted, as done by the trial Court.
Now, the medical opinion is also very clear pointing to the act of the accused,
since it stood in full corroboration of the ocular testimony. In the instant
case, the accused was also caught red-handed, and he was also produced before
the Police Officials. He was also sent for judicial remand, and the case was
registered immediately. The investigation was also over within a short span of
time. All would go to show the guilt of the accused. Hence, without any
hesitation, it can be safely recorded that it was the act of the
appellant/accused, by which Angammal died.
9.Now, coming to the question of the nature of the act of the accused,
this Court has to necessarily discountenance the contention put forth by the
appellant’s side. In the instant case, the earlier occurrence has taken place
on 5.9.1995, when he came over there and asked for the remaining food after
serving the children, and when she refused to give, he left the place. On
6.9.1995, when Angammal went to the nearby thope for fetching water, the accused
attacked her with a stick, and she fell down. Not satisfied with the same, he
took a stone and dashed on her head. No doubt, all these circumstances would be
pointing to the intentional act of the appellant/accused. It is not the case of
either side that he came to the Noon-meal Centre attached to the said School, on
the day of occurrence, and there was a refusal. But, the refusal was made on
the previous day. On the date of occurrence, when she went over to take water,
the accused appeared there and attacked her. When he gave the attack with the
stick, she fell down. Not satisfied with that, he took a stone and dashed on
her head, which led to her death instantaneously. The Doctor has clearly stated
in his postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, that the deceased would appear to have
died out of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ namely brain,
about 18 to 24 hours prior to the commencement of postmortem. Thus, the injury
that was sustained in the skull affecting the brain, was responsible for the
death. In the instant case, it would be abundantly clear that the accused went
to the spot, where she was to fetch water, and at that time, he attacked her
with the stick and also dashed her head with the stone causing her death
instantaneously. This Court is of the considered opinion that this act of the
appellant/accused, at no stretch of imagination, would fall short of the
definition of murder; but, it was an intentional act. Hence, the lower Court
was perfectly correct in recording a finding that he was guilty of murder and
also in awarding the life imprisonment. There is nothing to be interfered
either in the conviction based or in the sentence awarded by the Court below.
10.In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed,
confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.
It is reported that the appellant is on bail. Hence, the Sessions Judge shall
take steps to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
To:
1)The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai
2)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sudamalai Kundu Police Station
Sudamalai Kundu, (Cr. No.131 of 1995)
3)The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court