JUDGMENT
M. Thanikachalam, J.
1. The accused in S.C.No.233/93 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, who suffered a conviction and sentence, for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is the appellant.
2. The respondent police brought the accused before the trial Court, to face the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., alleging that on 15.2.1992 at about 3.00 a.m., when one Rajaram was sleeping in a motor pump shed, belongs to one Raja, at Gandhigraman, the accused due to previous enmity, stabbed him over his chest, with an intention to commit murder, which stab took away his life and therefore, he should be punished under Section 302 I.P.C.
3. Upon consideration of the materials placed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, he framed a charge under Section 302 I.P.C, for which the accused refused to plead guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution to make out a case, for conviction.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and to buttress their oral testimony, 16 documents were exhibited, followed by nine material objects.
5. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, scanning the above materials, and weighing the same, in proper scale, took the view that the evidence available on record, are inspiring and sufficient to sustain a conviction. In this view, he convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., as per the judgment dated 16.10.1995, which is under challenge before us.
6. Brief Facts:
(a) One week prior to the incident viz., 15.2.1992, there was a panchayat, at the instance of the accused, since Rajaram behaved indecently with his wife Essamal. Because of the conduct of Rajaram, the accused had some animosity against him.
(b) Thiru Azhagarsamy, P.W.1 is the father of Rajaram. Azhagar (P.W.2), Pondi (P.W.3) and others are sugarcane cutters. On 14.2.1992, all the above said persons were engaged in cutting sugarcane, in the sugarcane field of Raja at Gandhigramam. After the day’s work, Raja was sleeping in the motor shed, which had a burning light on the top, while P.Ws.2 & 3 and others were sleeping, outside.
(c) On 15.2.1992 at about 3.00 a.m., when Rajaram was sleeping in the motor shed, the accused went there and stabbed him with M.O.1, knife, over his chest, causing fatal injury. On hearing the noise of Rajaram, P.Ws.2 and 3 woke up, noticed the accused, running with knife. When P.Ws.2 & 3 attempted to catch him, he escaped. Thereafter, P.Ws.2 & 3 took the injured Rajaram, to the hospital, for treatment. After admitting Rajaram in the hospital, P.W.2 informed the same to the father of Rajaram (P.W.1). When P.W.1 reached the hospital, he was informed about the death of his son, Rajaram.
(d) P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1, complaint, on 15.2.92 at about 8.30 a.m., which was received by P.W.10, who registered a case under Section 302 I.P.C. in Cr.No.50/92, for which he submitted Ex.P.14, printed F.I.R. to the Court concerned. On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., at about 9.00 a.m. on the same day, the then Inspector of Police, P.W.11, took up the case for investigation, inspected the scene of crime at about 9.30 a.m., prepared Ex.P.2, observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and one Azhagarmalai, in addition to drawing a sketch, Ex.P.15. At about 10.00 a.m., he recovered M.Os.2, 3, 4 & 5 from the scene of crime, under Exs.P.3 and P.4. He had also examined the witnesses 1 to 3, and recorded their statements, then and there. Thereafter, between 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 pm. on the same day, he conducted inquest and its outcome is Ex.P.16. The body of Rajaram was sent for postmortem, through P.W.8, with the requisition, Ex.P.5.
(e) The doctor, P.W.6 on receipt of Ex.P.5 and upon identification of the body of deceased Rajaram, conducted autopsy on 15.2.1992 at about 3.10 p.m., which revealed the following external and internal injuries and symptoms:
“Vertically oblique stab injury front of left side chest 6 cms. from the left nipple and close to midline, 3 cms. from midline measuring 2 x .5 cm x entering the thoracic cavity. Margins regular lower end pointed, upper end curved, situated in the 6th intercostal space cutting the 7th intercostal muscles passing obliquely downwards and inwards piercing the pericardium 2 cm x linear x through & through passes downwards along the left atrium anterior surface 1.5 cm x .25 cm through & through entering the cavity. Margins regular, upper end curved inner end pointed. Pericardium contains 250 ml. of clotted blood. Left atrium 50 gms of clotted blood. Other chambers empty. Left Pleural cavity contains 750 gms. of blood with clots. Peritoneal cavity empty. Right pleural cavity empty.”
(f) The investigating officer, P.W.11 in continuation of the investigation, arrested the accused on 17.2.1992, on information, at about 5.00 a.m. near Alanganallur Gate, adjacent to Devaraj Cycle Shop. Upon examination, the accused gave disclosure statement (Ex.P.8) and in pursuance of the same, just 15 ft. away from the scene of crime, M.O.1 was recovered under Ex.P.9. He had also examined the witnesses, then and there and sent the material objects for chemical examination, which revealed that the clasp knife recovered on the basis of the confession, does contain the human ‘B’ blood, as that of the deceased. On the basis of the investigation, concluding that the accused alone might have committed the murder of Rajaram, a final report was filed, leading to the trial, ending in conviction, which is challenged in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S. Kalyanaraman and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend, that no specific motive was suggested for the crime and therefore, the alleged stabbing by the accused, must be false. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that P.Ws.2 & 3, even as per their oral testimony, are not the eye witnesses and therefore, placing reliance upon their testimony, sustaining the conviction is not legal. It is further pointed out, that the seizure of the weapon, on the basis of the alleged confession is unbelievable and in this view, the weapon said to have been used by the accused itself, is not proved. He further points out, that even as per the averments in Ex.P.1, the accused is implicated, only on the basis of the hearsay and therefore, this could not be the acceptable base for conviction. He has also pointed out further, that P.W.11 has not spoken about the place of inquest, which should give a crack to the prosecution case.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend, that though P.Ws.2 & 3 have not spoken about the actual stabbing by the accused, they have clearly spoken about the presence of the accused and his running away from the scene of crime, which alone is sufficient to rope in him, as the culprit, coupled with recovery and other attending circumstances, which are not erased. In this view, he supported the findings, seeking confirmation.
10. The incident had taken place on 15.2.1992 at the wee hours viz., 3.00 a.m, while all were sleeping, including the deceased. Therefore, generally, expecting in this kind of case, an eye witness is remote. Therefore, when the crime was committed, on the basis of the subsequent continuous events, a conviction could be sustained, if those circumstances point out the accused alone, ruling out the possibility of others, involving in the crime. In this case, this aspect is clinchingly proved and we have no hesitation to conclude that the trial Court has properly, approached the case and slapped a conviction, which deserves to be confirmed.
11. On 15.2.1992 itself, after knowing the death of his son at hospital, P.W.1 rushed to the police station, preferred Ex.P.1 complaint, wherein we find sufficient materials informing, who is the accused. Very fairly, P.W.1 has stated in Ex.P.1 that Azhagar (P.W.2) and Pandi (P.W.3) have informed him, about the stabbing of his son by the accused Muniyandi. When the persons, who furnished the information having been examined, the averments in Ex.P.1 could not be erased, on the ground that this information is based on hearsay. In Ex.P.1 itself, previous motive, between the deceased and the accused was also stated. In continuity, a F.I.R was registered on 15.2.1992, at about 8.30 and it reached the court also without delay, as seen from the printed F.I.R. at about 1.30 p.m. Therefore, there is no question of deliberation or discussion, in order to rope in the accused. This would suggest, P.W.1 had given the information in Ex.P.1, as per the reality and if those averments are supported by the evidence, the accused should be held responsible for the murder.
12. The doctor, P.W.6, at the time of autopsy, noticed a stab injury, on the left chest, which pierced through the body, causing internal injury also, thereby damaging the pericardium. Rajaram died due to hemorrhage, because of the serious nature of the injuries, sustained by stab, which caused shock and hemorrhage, is the opinion incorporated in Ex.P.6. The doctor as P.W.6, when gave the evidence, about the cause of death of Rajaram, the same is not challenged. In this view, we conclude, accepting the medical evidence, that Rajaram died only due to the stab injury, which he received on 15.2.1992, at about 3.00 a.m. If the said injury was caused by the accused with M.O.1, then his act should attract 302 I.P.C. and nothing else.
13. As far as the motive part is concerned, the same is spoken by P.W.1, supported by P.W.4. We find no reason to erase their testimony, regarding the motive spoken by them. This would suggest, that the accused might have entertained some animosity against the deceased, as if he was having, illicit intimacy or something like that, with his wife. Even in the absence of motive, if a murder is committed, with an intention to commit the same, then it should attract 302 I.P.C. In this view also, the case should be analysed and only on the ground, motive is not proved, throwing the same as false, is not legal.
14. On the date of the incident, according to P.Ws.2 & 3, electric light was burning at the top of the motor shed, which is not questioned. As seen from the cross examination of P.Ws.2 & 3, their presence also admitted. It is suggested to P.Ws.2 & 3, that because of the previous day’s work, they had the deep slumber and they have not seen the incident. Therefore, we find no difficulty to conclude that P.Ws.2 & 3 might have been present, at the time of the incident, the further fact being, they are the co-workers of the deceased. The incident had taken place in the motor pump shed of Raja, is also not in dispute, which is further proved by the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, as well as recovery of M.Os.2 & 5 from the scene of crime under Exs.P.3 & 4. Thus fixing the scene of crime, as well as the presence of P.Ws.2 & 3, we have to see, the trustworthiness of the evidence given by P.Ws.2 & 3.
15. P.W.2 has deposed, that on the date of the incident, Rajaram was sleeping inside the motor shed and he, P.W.3 were sleeping along with others, outside. According to P.Ws.2 & 3, at about 3.00 p.m., they heard the noice “Kdpahz;o Fj;jwhnd” and therefore, woke up and saw the accused, running with knife. The evidence so given by P.Ws.1 & 2 inspires the confidence of the Court, and we do not find anything to discard their testimony as unworthy, the further fact being that they are not interested, either in the deceased or motivated against the accused. When an incident had taken place during the night hours, one could see the same, only after hearing the noise. In this natural way, P.Ws.2 and 3 have seen the accused, running from the motor shed, with knife and immediately, they have seen Rajaram with stab injury. If we connect these two, the only possible inference should be, that the accused alone had stabbed Rajaram and ran away from the scene of crime, on seeing P.Ws.2 & 3.
16. The witness examined on behalf of the accused, viz., D.W.1 also would suggest, that the incident had taken place in the motor shed and one person stabbed the deceased Rajaram. If the oral evidence of D.W.1 is read with P.W.3, the only possible conclusion must be, that the accused alone had stabbed the deceased and escaped from the scene of crime, probably, after throwing the weapon at a distance. Thus, accepting the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3, supported by Ex.P.1, as did by the trial Court, we do conclude that the accused alone was the cause for the stab injuries, sustained by the deceased.
17. The investigating officer would state, that on 17.2.1992, he arrested the accused and on his confession or disclosure statement (Ex.P.8), M.O.1 was recovered from the sugarcane field under Ex.P.9 in the presence of P.W.7. P.W.7 has also given evidence, unquestionably, about the confession and the recovery. This weapon was identified by P.W.2, as the one used by the accused. When this weapon was sent for chemical analysis, ‘B’ Group human blood was noticed, as that of the deceased. This would suggest that the accused alone should have used M.O1, for stabbing Rajaram and that is why, it does contain the blood group of the deceased also. We do not find any reason, much less valid reason, to doubt the investigation also, since we are unable to see any laches or grey area. The trial Court considering all these aspects, believing the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, had come to a correct and just conclusion, which requires affirmation and not even any variation.
18. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.2 & 3 are not the eye witnesses and in fact they are the eye witnesses and they have spoken naturally also. Though, the investigating officer has failed to speak, where he had conducted the inquest, the inquest report reveals, the inquest was conducted in the hospital and this will not weaken the case of the prosecution in any manner. We find no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
The result therefore is, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction sentence of the trial court. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail earlier. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the accused, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.