IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 31-3-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CRL.A.No.7 of 2010 Alagu Sakthivel .. Appellant vs State by: Inspector of Police Madathukulam Police Station Coimbatore District (Cr.No.467/07) .. Respondent Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.113 of 2008 dated 30.12.2008. For Appellant : Mr.T.Munirathnam Naidu For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.113 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded punishment of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence while he was acquitted of the charge under Sec.341 of IPC.
2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Muthulakshmi. P.W.2 is her husband. She was living with her husband at a place called Karathozhuvam at Udumalpet. P.W.1’s mother got separated from her husband 15 years back, and she was living separately. She developed intimacy with the deceased. While it was continuing, one Subramani who used to lend money to the deceased, came to her house often. The accused suspected her conduct and fidelity.
(b) On 27.12.2007, P.W.1 accompanied by her husband P.W.2, went to the house of the junior maternal uncle for a festive occasion. When they were just proceeding near a cinema theatre at about 6.30 P.M., the accused intercepted the deceased and uttered “Do you require one more husband”. So saying he attacked her with an aruval, M.O.1, on her neck, and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. When the distressing cry was raised and a huge crowd gathered, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. At about 7.00 P.M., P.W.3 found him on the way. The accused informed to P.W.3 “I finished her off”. Then P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded to the respondent police station since she died at the spot. On the complaint given by P.W.1 under Ex.P1, P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.467 of 2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court.
(c) The investigation was taken up by P.W.8, the Inspector of Police of the Circle. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P11. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P12. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem.
(d) Pursuant to a requisition given, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.6, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet. He gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to severe injury to vital blood vessels. He issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P9.
(e) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 28.12.2007 at about 6.00 A.M. He came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P4, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 and other witness. M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, and M.O.8, bloodstained dothi, were also recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then he was sent for judicial remand.
(f) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the material objects recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in two reports namely chemical analyst’s report, Ex.P7, and the serologist’s report, Ex.P8. They were all placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate’s Court.
(g) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed a final report.
3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and also relied on 12 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder and hence found him guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.
4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr.T.Munirathnam Naidu would submit that in the instant case, only P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place near a cinema theatre and that too in the evening hours; that under the circumstances, there should have been lot of crowd and independent witnesses; but they have not been examined at all; that the non-examination of the available independent witnesses would tell upon the prosecution case and it was also fatal; that P.W.1 is the daughter and P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1; and that under such circumstances, a careful scrutiny test if applied, in view of the discrepancies found in their evidence, the trial Court should have rejected their testimony.
5.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the recovery of the material objects following the confessional statement is concerned, it was nothing but a cooked up story in order to strengthen the prosecution case; that the postmortem certificate and the Doctor’s evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony; that under the circumstances, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or much less produced suffice evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused, and thus he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.
6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7.It is not in controversy that one Muthulakshmi, the mother of P.W.1, was done to death in an incident that had taken place on 27.12.2007 at about 6.30 P.M. at the place of occurrence. Following the registration of the case by P.W.7 under Sec.302 of IPC, the investigation was taken up by P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, who conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.6, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion as a witness before the Court and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. The fact that she died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt by the Court in recording so.
8.In order to substantiate that it was the accused, who attacked her with an aruval and caused her instantaneous death, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2. True it is P.W.1 is the daughter and P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. Thus they are closely related. It is settled principle of law that merely because of the close relationship, their evidence need not be discarded. But, before acceptance the test of careful scrutiny must be applied. In the case on hand, even after the application of the test, this Court is satisfied that their evidence was trustworthy because it is cogent, convincing and acceptable, and hence it was rightly accepted by the trial Court. Both the witnesses have clearly spoken to the fact that the deceased was not living with her husband for a long time, and the accused developed illicit intimacy with her, and while they were closely intimated, she had developed intimacy with one Subramani through whom she got money. Aggrieved over the same, uttering the above words, the accused cut her with the aruval and caused her death. As far as this part of the evidence is concerned, the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The injuries noted therein would clearly indicate that P.Ws.1 and 2 should have seen the occurrence. Apart from that, immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 has rushed to the police station and gave the complaint on the strength of which the case came to be registered, and it has also reached the Judicial Magistrate within a reasonable time. All would go to show that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was to be accepted.
9.Yet another circumstance in favour of the prosecution is the recovery of the weapon of crime namely aruval from the accused consequent upon the confessional statement given in the presence of P.W.4. P.W.4 was examined for the relevant fact of arrest, confession and recovery of weapon of crime. The recovery of weapon of crime following the confessional statement given by the accused, would be indicative of the nexus of the accused with the crime. Therefore, in the face of the evidence available, the contentions put forth by the appellant’s side do not merit acceptance at all. In the instant case, there was not even a quarrel or anything to provoke, and he suddenly acted in a public place and attacked her with an aruval. At that time, the lady was actually unarmed. He suddenly appeared with aruval, cut her and caused her death instantaneously. It would indicate that it was an intentional act on the part of the accused, and hence the penal provision of murder would be attracted. The trial Court was perfectly correct in finding him guilty on the provisions of murder and awarding life imprisonment which, in the considered opinion of the Court, does not require disturbance either factually or legally.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
AND
C.S.KARNAN, J.
nsv
10.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
(M.C.,J.) (C.S.K.,J.)
31-3-2010
Index: yes
Internet: yes
nsv/
CRL.A.No.7 of 2010