Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006

Madras High Court
Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006




DATED : 18/04/2006


Criminal Appeal No.262 of 1997

Ravi				...		Appellant


State by:		
Sub Inspector of Police,
Narikkudi Police Station,
Aruppukottai, Cr.No.123/93
Kamarajar District.		...		Respondent

	Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur, dated 05.02.1997 in Sessions Case
No.131 of 1996.

!For Appellant 		...	Mrs.B.Asha
			     	for Mrs.Adline Stella Bellie

^For Respondent  	...	Mr.K.Chellapandian,
			     	Additional Public Prosecutor.


(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)

This appeal by the first accused arises out of the judgment of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur
dated 5.2.1997 made in Sessions Case No.131 of 1996 in and by which the trial
Judge convicted the first accused for the offences under sections 302, 307 and
324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302
I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 I.P.C. and
rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 I.P.C.

2. Totally, there were two accused in the case. The charge against them
is that on 27.07.1993 at about 11.00 p.m., at Kandukondan Manickam village, on
the pial of the house of P.W.1, when Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased,
Accused No.1 with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, stabbed him
on his face and chest with a knife (M.O.1) and the deceased succumbed to the
injuries, which act is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; in the course of the
same transaction, Accused No.2 caught hold the deceased to facilitate Accused
No.1 to cause the death of the deceased, which act is punishable under Section
302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Accused No.1 attempted to murder P.W.1 Vellaiammal and
P.W.3 Subbiah and caused injuries on them, which act is punishable under Section
307 I.P.C (two counts).

3. As Accused No.2 died on 17.01.2001, this Court, by judgment dated
17.03.2006, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.310 of 1997 filed by him as abated.
4.1. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of the
witnesses examined by them, is as follows:

(a) P.W.4 Rakku is the mother of the deceased viz., Chandran. P.W.1
Vellaiammal and P.W.3 Subbiah are her parents and they are residing at
Kandukondan village. P.W.2 Chandra @ Chandrayi is younger daughter of P.W.4,
who is residing with her grand parents.

(b) The deceased was doing sugarcane juice business at Anna bus stand,
Madurai, and his family members were assisting him. Accused No.1 was also doing
the sugarcane juice business and residing opposite to the house of P.W.1. The
eldest daughter of P.W.4 viz., Seenivasuki was given in marriage to Accused
No.2, a friend of Accused No.1. After the marriage, Accused No.2 along with his
wife was residing at Madurai. P.W.4, the deceased and her younger son
Vettriveeran were also residing with them at Madurai.

(c) As Accused No.2 used to utter filthy words on P.W.4, the deceased
told Accused No.2 that if he continued to behave like this, they would leave
him. As there was no change in the behaviour of Accused No.2, P.W.4 along
with her sons came out of his house and were residing separately at Madurai.

(d) When P.W.4 was alone in the house, Accused No.2 attempted to outrage
her modesty. P.W.4 informed about the character of Accused No.2 to the
deceased. Enraged at this, the deceased stabbed accused No.2 and in this regard,
a case was registered on the complaint given by Accused No.2 on 08.06.1993 by
P.W.8 Head Constable in Crime No.589 of 1993 of Thallakulam Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P6 is the first
information report and the case was pending.

(e) Five days thereafter, Accused No.2 beat the deceased at Anna bus stand
and the deceased lodged a complaint against Accused No.2 and the said case is
also pending.

(f) Accused No.2 informed the Inspector, who investigated the case
registered on the complaint of the deceased, that he should not be made
responsible, if anyone murdered the deceased within ten days. Fearing on the
statement of Accused No.2, P.W.4 sent the deceased to Kandukondan village, where
P.Ws.1 and 3 were residing.

(g) On the date of occurrence i.e. 27.07.1993, when P.W.1 and her mother
were sleeping in front of the house, P.W.2 along with her brother Karnan were
sleeping inside the house, and the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the
house. P.W.3 went outside for a panchayat. At about 11.00 p.m., accused Nos.1
and 2 came there and while Accused No.2 was catching hold the deceased, Accused
No.1 stabbed him on his chest and neck with a soori knife (M.O.1). At that time,
P.W.1 screamed and caught hold Accused No.1 and Accused No.1, by using the same
weapon, cut her left side nose and dragged the knife upto her right cheek. On
hearing the noise, P.W.3 and other panchayat people came to the scene of
occurrence. Accused No.1 also cut P.W.3 on his neck. Both the accused ran away
from the place of occurrence with the weapon. P.W.2 also witnessed the said

(h) P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the police station and gave statement
Ex.P-1. P.W.7 is the Head Constable, who recorded Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 1.00 a.m.
on 28.07.1993. As the left thumb of P.W.1 was injured, P.W.7 obtained her right
thumb impression. He registered a case in Crime No.123 of 1993 and prepared
Ex.P5, first information report and sent P.Ws.1 and 3 to the Government
Hospital, Aruppukottai for treatment. He sent the FIR to the jurisdictional
Court as well as to the higher officials.

(i) P.W.11 is the Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 at 2.25 a.m. on
28.07.1993. P.W.11 found a cut injury (16 x 3 x 2 cm) across the nose, from 1″
below the left eye to right nostril upto the border of the mandible across the
nose on the right side starting from nasal cavity. Right upper pre-molar was
found broken and right side teeth were shaky. He issued Ex.P9, the accident
register extract wherein it is opined that the injury was grievous in nature.

(j) Based on Ex.P5 FIR, P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up the
investigation of the case on 28.07.1993. He visited the scene of occurrence at
6.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and
another. He also drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch. He conducted inquest over the
dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-11 inquest report.
He recovered M.O.4, bloodstained mat, M.O.5, bloodstained cement mortar, M.O.6
sample cement mortar and M.O.7 saree under Ex.P-4 mahazar, in the presence of
P.W.6 and another. He gave a requisition for conducting postmortem on the dead

(k) P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased Chandran at 1.30 p.m. on 28.07.1993. He found the following ante-
mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

1. A cut injury about 8cm x 3cm x 2cm is seen over the left side of cheek
extending from the angle of the mouth to left side of the neck 2″ below the left
ear. Cut end of the muscles are seen over the left end of the injury the depth
is about + cm.

2. A stab injury about 3cm x 1+cm x 3cm is seen over the left side of the
chest just below the medial end of the clavicle. The injury is transverse in

On Exploration of the wound No.2, the pulmonary artery is cut just below
the bifurcation of right and left branches of the pulmonary artery anteriorly.
Blood clots are seen at the side of the injury over the pulmonary artery. The
injury over the artery is 7mm x 5mm.

The postmortem doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have
died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to great vessels (pulmonary artery)
about 13 to 15 hours prior to autopsy. Ex.P-7 is the postmortem certificate.

(l) P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated P.W.3 at 1.30 a.m. on 29.7.1993 and
found a linear abrasion of 6 cm in length with scab at left side of neck. He
issued Ex.P8 wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature.

(m) P.W.12, in continuation of the investigation, at 9.30 p.m. on
28.07.1993 recovered the personal apparels of the deceased, M.O.8, banian and
M.O.9, lungi, produced by the constable.

(n) On 03.08.1993, P.W.12 arrested Accused No.1 at Thiruvalluvar bus
stand, Madurai. When P.W.12 examined Accused No.1, he gave a voluntary
confession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-12, pursuant
to which, Accused No.2 was arrested at Anna bus stand and M.O.1 soori knife and
M.O.10 torch light were recovered under Ex.P-13 mahazar attested by P.W.6 and
another. He examined P.W.8 and recorded his statement. He sent the material
objects with Ex.P14, requisition, to the Court to subject them to chemical
analysis and the same were sent to the laboratory under Ex.P15, Court’s letter.
Exs.P16 and P.17 are Chemical Analyst’s Report and Serologist’s Report
respectively. He examined the postmortem doctor and other witnesses and
recorded their statements. On completion of the investigation, the
investigating officer filed a final report against the accused on 19.11.1993.
4.2. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution
examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12, marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 as well as M.Os.1
to 10, as referred to above.

5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against them in
the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false. The accused
has not examined any witness or marked any document on his side.

6. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,
found both the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated
earlier. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Accused No.1 contends that
the evidence of ocular witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 is not cogent, clear and
consistent and therefore, the conviction of Accused No.1 based on their evidence
is not sustainable. It is her further contention that there is a doubt as to
who actually gave Ex.P1 statement to the police since Ex.P1 is said to have been
given by P.W.1 viz., “Vellaiammal” whereas at the end of the statement it is
mentioned as right thumb impression of “Vellayeeammal”. Learned counsel also
raised a contention that there is no acceptable explanation on the part of the
prosecution for getting the right thumb impression of the complainant being a

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws.1 to 3, who are
eye witnesses to the occurrence, clearly and cogently speak about the overt acts
attributed to the accused persons and their evidence unerringly points out the
guilt of the accused in murdering the deceased. Further, M.O.1 soori knife,
which was recovered based on Ex.P-12, admissible portion of the voluntary
confession statement given by Accused No.1, was found to have contained the same
blood group and this part of evidence also connects the accused with the crime.

9. It is further contended that there is no doubt at all to hold who is
the actual complainant because a perusal of the original Ex.P1 would clearly
indicate that it is only Vellaiammal viz., P.W.1 who actually gave the complaint
and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is without any basis.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that the prosecution has
come out with acceptable evidence through P.W.7, Head Constable, for getting the
right thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P-1, as there was bleeding injury on her
left thumb.

10. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the
counsel on the either side and also perused the evidence on record.

11. In the context of the above submissions of the learned counsel on
either side, the point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is that
whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

12. The prosecution has proved their case that deceased Chandran died due
to homicidal violence by examining P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted postmortem
over the dead body of the deceased and marking Ex.P-7, postmortem certificate.
The defence is also not disputing the fact that Chandran died due to homicidal

13. The motive for the occurrence as projected by the prosecution is that
Accused No.2, who is the son-in-law of P.W.4 attempted to outrage her modesty on
several occasions prior to the date of occurrence and this was informed by P.W.4
to the deceased viz., her son and the deceased questioned Accused No.2 and
stabbed him with a knife and a case was pending against the deceased in respect
of that occurrence. In retaliation, the Accused No.2 also beat the deceased and
another criminal case was registered on the said incident. Accused No.2 informed
the Inspector of Police, who investigated the case registered on the complaint
of the deceased, that he should not be held responsible, if the deceased was
murdered within ten days from the said incident. Therefore, there was enmity
between the deceased and Accused No.2. This motive aspect of the case of the
prosecution is well established by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4.

14. It is the case of the prosecution that due to prior enmity, at 11.00
p.m. on 27.07.1993 when the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the house of
P.W.1, Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased and Accused No.1 stabbed on the
chest and neck of the deceased and when P.W.1, by raising alarm, caught hold of
Accused No.1, Accused No.1 stabbed her on her left nose and dragged the knife
upto the right cheek and on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, P.W.3, who was
attending a village panchayat, rushed to the scene of occurrence and Accused
No.1 also attacked him and thereafter both the accused ran away from the place
of occurrence. This part of the prosecution case is supported by the evidence
of P.Ws.1 to 3 in one voice. Nothing was suggested by the defence to demoralise
their evidence to the occurrence. Their evidence is cogent, clear and
trustworthy. Further, the medical evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor who conducted
postmortem of the deceased coupled with Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate
corroborates the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased died due to
the injuries sustained by him. Moreover, P.Ws.1 and 3 also sustained injuries
in the course of same transaction which stands proved by their evidence as well
as the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, the doctors who treated them.

15. On the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1
is not the author of Ex.P1, we took pain to go through the original records and
we find that it is only P.W.1 viz., Vellaiammal who had given the complaint and
her right thumb impression alone was obtained in Ex.P1 and therefore, this
contention of the counsel fails.

16. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant that there is no
explanation for obtaining the right thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P1 is also
without any merit in view of the explanation given by P.W.7, the Head Constable,
who registered the case that when P.W.1 appeared before him and narrated the
incident, he reduced it into writing and obtained her right thumb impression as
there was a bleeding injury in the left thumb of P.W.1. This explanation given
by P.W.7 appears to be convincing.

17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has
established their case that Accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to murder the
deceased attacked him when he was sleeping on the pial and when P.Ws.1 and 3
came to the rescue of the deceased, Accused No.1 attacked both of them with the
same knife. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the just and correct
conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who are responsible for
the crime and we see no reason at all to interfere with the well considered
judgment of the trial Court.

18. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Accused No.1 is
dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. It
is reported that the appellant is on bail. The bail bond executed by the
appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to
take steps to secure the presence of the appellant and send him to prison to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.


Copies to

1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. The Inspector of Police,
Narikkudi Police Station.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *