IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19/10/2004
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. BANUMATHI
Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2002
Perumal,
S/o. Palani. .. Appellant/Accused.
-Vs-
State represented by The Inspector of Police,
Poolampatti Police Station,
Edapadi, Salem.
(Crime No. 717/2000). ..Respondent/Complainant.
Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against conviction and sentence made in S. C.No. 340/2 001 dated
28-02-2002 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Salem.
For Appellant:- Mr. J. Shiva Ganesh.
For Respondent:- Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran, Addl. Public
Prosecutor.
:JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P. Sathasivam,J.)
Perumal, accused in Sessions Case No. 340 of 2001 on the file of
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, questioning
the conviction for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentence of
imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for six
months, has filed th e above appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:
a) Deceased Muthan alias Muthu and his wife Kandhayi were residents of
Ervadi Colony, Kuttapatti village. Their house situate in Arunthathiyar
Street, Kallapalayam. On 25-7-2000 Rajammal(P.W.1), daughter of the deceased
along with her husban d went to the house of her father, namely, the deceased
just to enquire them. When they reached the house of the deceased Muthan
around 11 A.M. her father was sitting in a cot in front of his house. On
seeing his daughters, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased told them that a week
ago when he tied a buffalo calf in a public place, near his house, the accused
unleashed the calf by raising objection. At that time the accused, who is the
neighbour of the deceased, was standing in front of his house, on hearing the
above narration of the deceased, replied that “if you are a male, try to tie
your calf again. For which, the deceased told him that he was explaining the
incident to his daughters and did not come to him for quarrel. Not liked by
the remarks of the deceased, the accused went inside his house, brought a
knife from there and attempted to stab the deceased. On seeing this, P.W.1
tried to stop the accused. But the accused pushed her. Then P.W.1 raised an
alarm. At that time, the accused stabbed with knife on the left chest of the
deceased and pushed him on the cot. The deceased died on the spot. On
hearing the cry of P.W.1, one Seerangan, husband of P.W.1, who was inside the
house of the deceased, came out from the house and other neighbours also
rushed to the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, the accused sped away from
the scene of occurrence with the knife.
b) P.W.1 went to Poolampatti Police Station at 2 P.M. on 25-7-20 00
and made a oral statement about the occurrence to P.W.1 0, Sub Inspector of
Police, who recorded the same, and got the thumb impression of P.W.1 in it.
Ex. P-1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to Police. On the basis of Ex.P-1,
he registered a case in Crime No. 717/2000 under Section 302 I.P.C. against
the accused. He prepared Express First Information Report-Ex.P-8 and sent
copies of the same to Judicial Magistrate’s Court and other higher authorities
for taking necessary action. P.W.10 supplied a copy of the first information
report to P.W.1.
c) P.W.12-the then Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, on
receipt of the printed first information report, took up investigation in this
case, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3-30 P.M., and prepared
observation mahazar-Ex.P-4 in the presence of Velayudham and Thamaraiselvan.
He drew a rough sketch- Ex.P-16. At about 4-30 P.M. he seized blood-stained
earth-M.O.4; sample earth-M.O.5; blood-stained cot-M.O.6 under Ex.P-5 mahazar
in the presence of witnesses. At 5 P.M. he conducted inquest on the body of
the deceased in the presence of panchatdars and enquired Rajammal, Madhammal,
Seerangan and Kaaveri and obtained their statements. Ex.P-17 is the inquest
report. He sent the body to the Government Hospital, Edapadi for post-mortem
through Head Constable- Ammasi with his requisition. He also enquired Ravi,
Kandhayi, Pappa, Madhan, Kandasamy, Velayudham and Thamaraiselvan and obtained
their statements. On the same date at 10 P.M. he arrested the accused at
Edapadi bus-stand. The accused gave a voluntary statement, the admissible
portion of which is Ex.P-6, which was recorded by P.W.12 in the presence of
witnesses-Velayudham and Thamaraiselvan. Pursuant to the confessional
statement-Ex.P-6, the accused took P.W.12 and produced a knife-M.O.1 from the
roof of his house and white colour “langodu”, which were recovered by P.W.12
under Ex.P-7 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He arranged for sending
the seized articles to Court and also for chemical examination. On 26-7-2000
he enquired one Ammasi and obtained his statement. He also enquired Dr.
Thiagarajan. After completing investigation and after getting opinion from
the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he filed charge sheet on 8-9 -2000 for
offences under Sections 441, 341 and 302 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 12 and
marked 17 documents as Exs. P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 9. When the accused
was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating
circumstances available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied
the offences and pleaded not guilty. He did not examine any witness on his
side. The learned trial Judge by accepting the case of the prosecution,
convicted him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i.d., to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
4. Heard Mr. J. Shiva Ganesh, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the
prosecution has established its case against the accused/ appellant beyond
doubt; and whether the trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment
for life with fine of Rs.1 ,000/-?
6. The motive for the occurrence is a wordy quarrel that had taken
place a week prior to the date of occurrence between the deceased and the
accused regarding tying of buffalo calf in the public land. This was narrated
by the deceased to his daughters-P. Ws.1 and 2 who were very well present at
the scene of occurrence. P.W.5, a resident of Kallapalayam also explained the
above incident of wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused which had
taken place a week ago prior to the date of occurrence relating to tying of
buffalo calf. Similar allegation was made in the complaint-Ex.P-1 given by
P.W.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.10 of Poolampatti Police Station.
There is no reason to disbelieve their version.
7. The scene of occurrence and the manner in which the accused
murdered the deceased is explained by P.Ws.1 and 2, daughters of the deceased.
It is not in dispute that the accused is a neighbour and he is none-else than
the cousin brouther of the deceased. The occurrence took place at 11 A.M. on
25-7-2000. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that when his deceased
father was explaining the conduct of the accused in unleashing the buffalo
calf which was tied in a public place, the accused heard the same and remarked
him ( deceased) as to why he had discussed the incident that had taken place a
week ago. For the said remark, the deceased replied that he was discussing
the same only with his daughters. On getting infuriated, the accused went
inside his house, took a knife and stabbed him on the left side of his chest
and pushed him on the wooden cot. The deceased died. Immediately, P.W.1
raised an alarm. This was witnessed by her sister-P.W.2, and her
husband-P.W.3. It is also her case that immediately after the occurrence, the
accused sped away from the spot with the knife. It was P.W.1 who made a
complaint under Ex.P-1 to the police.
8. P.W.2, another daughter of the deceased, sister of P.W.1 has made
a statement similar to that of P.W.1 regarding the manner of the occurrence.
P.W.3, husband of P.W.1 who was inside the house, on hearing the noise, came
out and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with M.O.1. According to him,
when he attempted to catchhold of the accused, he ran away from the spot. He
also noticed the deceased succumbing to the injuries. He also accompanied
P.W.1 to the Police Station for giving complaint regarding the occurrence.
9. P.W.4-Kaveri who was standing at a distance of 50 feet from the
scene of occurrence, has also stated that on hearing the noise of P.Ws.1 and
2, she saw the accused stabbing the deceased with M.O.1-knife. She also
verified that the deceased died lying on the cot. Though she tried to catch
hold of the accused, since the latter threatened him, she was not successful
in her attempt. She was also enquired by the police.
10. P.W.7-Dr. Thiagarajan, who conducted post-mortem on the body of
Muthan, opined that the death was due to stab injury on the left chest. In
his opinion, he has stated that…
(TAMIL PORTION DELETED)
11. We have already referred to the fact that the Inspector of
Police-P.W.12 after recovery of earth(M.O.4), coir cot(M.O.6), knife (M.O.1),
cloth pieces (M.Os.7 and 8), shirt (M.O.9), arranged for sending the same to
chemical examination. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory-Ex.P-13
shows that those M.Os. contain human blood. As a matter of fact, coir
cot-M.O.6, towel (M.O.8) and shirt (M.O.9) contain B Group.
12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, P.W.7-Doctor,who conducted
post-mortem; Post-mortem certificate-Ex.P-3; observation mahazar-Ex.P-4;
serological report- Ex.P-13 would clearly prove the case of the prosecution
that the accused stabbed on the chest of the deceased with knife-M.O.1. After
considering all the material aspects, the learned trial Judge rightly accepted
the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant by pointing out the
fact that there was only one stab injury on the deceased, and the deceased and
the accused at the time of the occurrence were running 70 and 60 years
respectively old, submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment may be
reduced. We are unable to appreciate the said contention for the following
reasons. We have already concluded that the prosecution has established its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and it is the accused, who murdered the
deceased. In this regard, it is relevant to refer a judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana, reported in 2003
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 69, wherein Their Lordships have held that
infliction of single blow on vital part of the body is sufficient for
conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and Their Lordships rejected the plea for
conversion of the conviction to that under Section 304 Part I. In the case on
hand also, there is a single blow, however, the same is on the vital part of
the body, namely, left chest of the deceased. P.W.7Assistant Medical Officer,
Governme nt Hospital, Edappadi, who conducted the postmortem, has specifically
stated that the death was due to the said injury on the chest. He also
recorded the same in his post-mortem certificate-Ex.P-3. In such a
circumstance, though the accused had caused only a single injury, since the
same is on the vital part of the body which resulted in the death of the
deceased, as observed by the Supreme Court, the plea for conviction for
offence under Section 304 Part I cannot be accepted. Equally, merely because
the deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of the occurrence and the
accused was 60 years, in view of the fact that there is clinching and
acceptable evidence that it was the accused who caused the death of the
deceased by cutting with M.O.1-knife, there cannot be any lesser sentence than
that awarded by the trial Judge. Further, it is not in dispute that due to
economic development and other facilities, the longevity of life span of an
Indian citizen has considerably been raised; hence, it cannot be claimed that
the deceased has gone to the final stage of his life. Life is a precious gift
given by the God and no one has the right to take away the same even at the
old age; accordingly, we reject the request of the learned counsel for the
appellant for modification of the sentence.
14. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or
infirmity or valid ground for interference; accordingly, the appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.
R.B.
Index :- Yes
Internet:- Yes
To:-
1) The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.
2) The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.
3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4) The Inspector of Police, Poolampatti P.S.,
Edapadi,Salem.
5) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
6) The District Collector, Salem.
7) The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.