IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08/08/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
CRL. APPEAL NO.422 OF 1996
Kovil Pillai .. Appellant
-Vs-
State
rep. by Inspector of Police
Valparai P.S.
Cr. No.26/95 .. Respondent
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against
the judgment dated 11.4.1996 in S.C.No.173 of 1995 on the file of the learned
II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
!For Appellant : Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan
for Mr.Calvin Jacob
^For Respondent : Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:JUDGMENT
The sole accused in a case of murder, who stood charged, tried, found
guilty under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI with a fine
of Rs.1000/- in default one year RI has brought forth this appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be
stated as follows:
a) P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 are the Supervisors working in Nadumalai Estate
where P.W.7 was the acting Manager during the relevant time. The deceased
Kumaravel was working as Writer under P.W.7. P.W.8 Kanaki Devi was the wife
of the deceased. The accused Koil Pillai’s son Ganesan and his
daughter-in-law Bagyalakshmi were working in the same Estate. They were
working under the supervision of the deceased.
b) On 13.1.1995, the said Ganesan and one person by name George were
collecting the tea leaves at Field No.15 of the Estate. P.W.2 Supervisor came
to know that the said Ganesan was discouraging George from collecting more
laves and censured him. P.W.2 informed the same to the deceased, who in turn
brought the same to the Manager of the Estate, namely, P.W.7. P.W.7 suspended
the said Ganesan for 20 days. The complaint given by the deceased against the
said Ganesan to the Manager was marked as Ex.P.8. The said Ganesan has
tendered explanation, which was marked as Ex.P.9. When the deceased came to
know that Bagyalakshmi was also not properly doing her work, he sent her out
of the work. On 30.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m., the accused went to the house
of the deceased and picked up quarrel with him. P.W. Janaki Devi was also
present at the time of quarrel. The deceased has asked the accused to come to
the Muster-roll building to discuss about his grievance.
c) On 31.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 were waiting for the
arrival of the deceased at Muster-roll building. The deceased used to
distribute the work to the labourers at the Muster-roll building. While the
deceased was coming as usual on 31.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m. to the
Musterroll building, the accused emerged from the side of the pathway and
attacked the deceased with Kavathu Knife and caused injury on the left leg of
the deceased. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. After
causing injury, the accused sped away from the scene of occurrence. The
deceased was taken to the hospital. P. W.4 Doctor Thambiran gave treatment
to the deceased at about 7.50 a.m. On 31.1.1995. Ex.P.2 is the accident
register issued by the said doctor. P.W.4 sent the intimation to the police
under Ex.P.3. He also sent the death intimation to the police under Ex.P.4.
P.W.14 Duraisamy Head Constable attached to Valparai Police Station on
intimation went to the hospital and got the intimation that Kumaravel had
died. He obtained the statement of P.W.1. On the strength of Ex.P.1
complaint, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.26 of 1995 under Section 302
IPC against the accused. Ex.P.20 printed F.I.R was despatched to the
concerned court, while the copies were sent to the higher officials.
d) P.W.15 Easwaran Inspector of Police on receipt of the F.I.R took up
investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence at about 10.30 a.m. and
prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.10 in the presence of P.W.9 and another
witness by name Veeriah and h so prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.21. He
seized the blood stained earth M.O.4 and the sample earth M.O.5 in the
presence of the same witnesses under Ex.P.11 mahazar. P.W.11 photographer
took photographs and photographs M.Os6 to 10 were taken. The Investigating
Officer conducted inquest in the presence of the panchayatdhars and prepared
Ex.P.23 inquest report. On request made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.5
Dr.Mary Sugantha attached to Government Hospital, Valparai has conducted
autopsy on 31.1.1995 at about 2.00 p.m. Ex.P.6 was the post-mortem
certificate. He narrated the injuries found on the body and has opined that
the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to massive haemorrhage due
to injury to important blood vessels approximately about 6 hours prior to
autopsy.
e) On 1.2.1995 at about 9.10 a.m. near the bus stop of Nadumalai
Estate, P.w.15 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another
witness Rajan and obtained confessional statement from the accused. The
admissible portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.P.12.
Pursuant to the same, the accused/appellant produced the blood stained Kavathu
knife M.O.1 under Ex.P.13 mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses.
P.W.15 brought the accused along with the knife to the police station and on
finding that the accused has sustained some injuries, he has sent the accused
to the hospital for treatment with a memo. On requisition made by the
Investigating Officer, the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai sent M.Os.1 to 5 for
chemical examination under Ex.P.15. The biology report Ex.P.16, serology
report Ex.P.17 and the chemical analysis report Ex.P.18 were received. P.W.15
recorded the statement of all other witnesses. On completion of the
investigation, he filed a charge sheet.
3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the
prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 23 exhibits and 11 M.Os. On
completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances
found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which the accused flatly
denied as false. No defence witness was examined and no materials were marked
on the side of the defence. On consideration of the rival submissions made
and scrutiny of the materials available, the lower court found the accused
guilty under Section 326 IPC, though not under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment as stated above.
4. Advancing his argument on behalf of the appellant, the learned
counsel Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan inter-alia made the following submissions:
The lower court has failed to consider that there was absolutely no
evidence available connecting the accused to the crime. P.Ws.1 to 3, during
the relevant time, were working as Supervisor and the deceased was also
working as Supervisor, and thus, they were all interested witnesses. At the
time of investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that the accused
also sustained injuries. He was also sent for medical examination along with
memo and the injuries were also found. The prosecution has not come forward
to explain the said injuries. There was a delay in the first information,
which was not properly explained by the prosecution. Thus, without proper
appreciation of the evidence, the lower court has convicted him under Section
326 IPC. In view of the reasons stated above, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal in the hands of this Court.
5. Strongly opposing the contentions put forth by the appellant’s
side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that there
was overwhelming evidence in the instant case, which was properly appreciated
by the lower court and the lower court has found the accused guilty under
Section 326 IPC, and hence, the judgment of the lower court has got to be
affirmed.
6. A careful analysis and appraisement of the evidence available and
full consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is unable to
notice any substance in this appeal.
7. Admittedly, the accused Kovil Pillai’s son Ganesan and his
daughter-in-law Bagyalakshmi were working under the deceased, who was working
as Supervisor of Nadumalai Estate. Prior to the occurrence, a complaint as
found under Ex.P.8 was lodged by the deceased to his Manager alleging that the
son of the accused was discouraging the coworkers and on that count, he was
suspended for a period of 20 days. When the daughter-in-law of the accused,
namely, Bagyalakshmi was not properly doing her work, the deceased also kept
her out of service. Enraged over the same, the appellant/accused has gone to
the residence of the deceased on 30.1.1995 and quarrelled with him. At that
time, the deceased has asked the accused to come to Muster-roll building,
where it could be better discussed. On 31.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m. when the
deceased was proceeding from his house to the Muster-roll building, the
accused emerged from the side of the pathway and attacked the deceased with
M.O.1 kavathu knife and caused severe injury wo the deceased. This act of the
accused was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. All these three eyewitnesses have
categorically narrated the occurrence. Their evidence has inspired the
confidence of the Court in view of the cogency and the lower court has
correctly relied on their evidence. Immediately, the injured was taken to the
hospital, where he was treated by P.W.4 Dr.Thambiran. He issued accident
register, which was marked as Ex.P.2 where P.W.4 has narrated the injuries
found on the deceased and the statement of the deceased also.
8. On intimation, P.W.14 Head Constable attached to Valparai Police
Station proceeded to the hospital and came to know that the injured has died.
He received a complaint from P.W.1. On the strength of which, a case came to
be registered and investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer
shortly within a few hours after the occurrence. After the inquest made by
the Investigating Officer, a requisition was forwarded to Government Hospital,
Valparai to conduct postmortem, where P.W.5 Doctor has conducted autopsy on
the dead body of the deceased and has given post-mortem certificate Ex.P.6.
P.W.5 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to
massive haemorrhage due to injury to important blood vessels approximately
about 6 hours prior to autopsy, and thus, the medical evidence adduced by the
prosecution has clearly corroborated the ocular evidence.
9. One adding circumstance in the instant case was the confessional
statement made voluntarily by the accused before the Investigating Officer at
the time of his arrest in the presence of the witnesses. Pursuant to the
same, seizure of MO1, blood stained knife was made. The fact of arrest and
recovery of MO1 knife all were well spoken to by P.W.10. Despite cross
examination, his evidence as to those facts remained intact. This piece of
evidence stood as a corroborative piece of evidence showing the nexus between
the accused and the crime in question. All the M.Os were subjected to
chemical analysis and the reports have been marked. They have also supported
the case of the prosecution. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate ( Criminal side), there was overwhelming evidence in the instant case
pointing to the guilt of the accused that it was he who caused injuries to the
deceased, which caused his death. The lower court discussed the circumstances
and has found that it is not a fit case which would fall under Section 302
IPC, but would fall under Section 326 IPC. This Court, in view of the reasons
adduced by the lower court, does not find any reason to deviate from the
recordings as to the conviction under Section 326 IPC. 10. Coming to the
question of sentence, the lower court has awarded punishment of 7 years RI
along with a fine of Rs.10 00/- in default one year RI to the accused. The
learned counsel for the appelant brought to the notice of the Court that the
accused is aged about 80 years, and hence, some leniency has got to be shown
as to the punishment given to the accused. Taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the
punishment awarded by the lower court to the accused under Section 3 26 IPC
has got to be reduced to four years RI along with fine of Rs.1 000/- in
default three months RI. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower court
to the accused under Section 326 IPC is reduced to four years RI along with
fine of Rs.1000/- in default three months RI. With the above modification,
this criminal appeal is dismissed. The Sessions Judge shall take steps to
commit the accused to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining
period of sentence.
Index: Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Valparai
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Valparai
through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore
3. The II Addl. Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
4. The II Addl. Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
through the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
7. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4
8. Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt. Advocate (Crl side)
High Court, Chennai
9. The Inspector of Police, Valparai Police Station