BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 12/12/2008
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.REGUPATHI
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
Criminal Appeal (MD)No.200 of 2008
and
Criminal Appeal (MD)No.201 of 2008
1.Senthil ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.200/2008
2.Arangan
3.Chidambaram
4.Selvam ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.201/2008
Vs.
The State rep. by the
Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station
Pudukkottai District,
Crime No.795 of 2006 ... Respondent in both Appeals.
Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. as against the order of conviction and
sentence, dated 31.03.2008, passed in S.C.No.102 of 2007, by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai.
!For Appellants ... Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
S.C.
^For Respondent ... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai,
Additional Public Prosecutor
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.)
There were 9 accused before the trial Court of whom the appellant in
Crl.A.No.200 of 2008 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008 arrayed as
accused Nos.6, 1,4,7 and the acquitted accused arrayed as 2,5,8,9 respectively
took their trial in S.C.No.102 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC), Pudukkottai. They were convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment as under:
Accused/ Appellants Convicted under Section Sentence of imprisonment
A-6 (Appellant in 302 read with 34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to
C.A.No.200/ 2008), pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
A-1 (Appellant in 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to C.A.No.201 of 2008) pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. A-4 324 IPC Sentenced to undergo Rigorous (Appellant in Imprisonment for six months and to C.A.No.201 of 2008) pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.
A-7 (Appellant in 302 read with 34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to
C.A.No.201/ 2008) pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
2.These two appeals are filed by the convicted appellants who took their
trials under different charges for offences as indicated above on the
allegations that on 16.11.2006 at 15.00 p.m. in front of the house of P.W.1 at
Thethampatti village within the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District formed themselves into an unlawful assembly along with
other acquitted accused armed with deadly weapons with intention to murder the
deceased Chinnadurai (brother of P.W.1) and indiscriminately made murderous
attack by inflicting many vital injuries as a result of which the victim
instantly fell down on the spot and then died on 24.11.2006 while undergoing
treatment in the hospital due to the injuries sustained and also during the
course of the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, the father and son respectively of the
deceased also received grievous injuries at the hands of the accused, which
resulted in the trial of the case.
3.The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellants/accused and
the acquitted accused are the residents of the village namely, Thethampatti
within the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station. A civil dispute was pending
between the family of P.W.1 and the family of A-1. On 15.11.2006, the father of
A-1 Mariappan died and the family members of A-1 wanted to take the dead body of
the deceased through the streets where the house of the P.W.1 is situated and
hence the A-1 and their relatives sought permission with P.W.2, (the father of
the deceased) to take the body to the cremation ground through the street
running in front of the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. But P.Ws.1 and 2 were not
inclined to accede the request of A-1 and their relatives. Since there is
formation of a separate public path way from the village to go to the cremation
ground, P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the Village Administrative Officer and Village
Head and other important persons in the village and requested them to advise A-1
and his people to take the body of the father of A-1 through the public pathway.
Pursuant to the request made by P.Ws.1 and 2, the family members of A-1 were
instructed to take the body of the deceased Mariappan through the public
pathway. Due to this, A-1 and his family members got annoyed and on 16.11.1996,
at 3.00 p.m. before taking the body to the cremation ground, A-1 along with his
brother A-2, A-5 and his relatives A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 went to the
house of P.W.1 armed with deadly weapons and shouted at them to come out of the
house. The deceased, Chinnadurai (the son of P.W.2) came out of the house and on
seeing Chinnadurai, Appellant No.2 (A-1, Arangan) shouted at him saying only if
he was killed they could live peacefully and so saying he delivered a cut on the
centre of the head of the deceased. Following that the first appellant, Senthil
(Appellant in Crl.A.No.200/2008) snatched the Aruval from A-1 and delivered a
cut on the centre of the head of the deceased. On seeing this, A-7 (3rd
Appellant in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008) assaulted the deceased with a stick on the
left side of the head. The deceased become unconscious and fell down. Then A-9
assaulted the deceased with a stick on his back. While P.W.1 rushed to the
scene to prevent the accused from making further attacks, A-2 and A-3 delivered
cuts on the head of P.W.1 and when P.W.2 attempted to prevent the cut, he had
also sustained injuries on his left hand. During the same transaction, A-4 and
A-5 delivered cuts on the head of P.W.1 when P.W.1 attempted to prevent the
same, he also sustained injury on the right hand side. After committing the
attack, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter,
P.Ws.1 and 2 and the injured Chinnadurai were taken to the Government Hospital
at Pudukkottai by the village people and since Chinnadurai was in very serious
condition, he was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and admitted
therein.
On receipt of intimation from the Pudukkottai Government Hospital, P.W.14,
Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 08.00 p.m. On
16.11.1996 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 who was taking treatment in Ward
No.41 of the hospital and returned to the police station and registered a case
in Crime No.795 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC. Ex.P.1 is
the complaint given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.6 is the copy of First Information Report
and P.W.14 forwarded the same to the higher officials in the Department.
P.W.19, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the First Information
Report, took up investigation and on 17.11.2006 and at 10.00 A.M., proceeded to
the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 prepared an
observation mahazar Ex.P.16 and rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P.17 and recovered
bloodstained earth and sample earth M.Os.5 and 6 under a cover of Mahazar
Ex.P.18. On the same day, at 12.30 noon P.W.19 arrested A-1 to A-5 and recorded
their voluntary confession statements. The admissible portion of which were
marked as Exs.P.19 to P.23 respectively. Pursuant to their confession
statements, M.Os.2,7,8,9,10 and 11 were recovered under the cover of Mahazars
Exs.P.24 to 28.
P.W.19, Investigating Officer took up the investigation. Since the
deceased who was admitted in the Government hospital died on 24.11.2006
proceeded to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of
the deceased in the presence of witnesses and the inquest report is marked as
Ex.P-9.
PW-11 is the Medical Officer, who on receipt of the requisition from the
Investigating Officer, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on
25.11.2006 at 3.00 P.M. Ex.P-4 is the Post Mortem certificate wherein, the
Doctor has noted the following:-
“External injuries:
1.Sub conjunctival haemorrhages in both eyes noted.
2.An irregular infected sutured lacerationwith intact silk sutures over the
vertex of scal;p measuring 4cmx4cmxbone deep with surrounding contusion.
3.Diffuse Dense contusion over the whole of right side frontal, parietal and
Temporal regions.
4.A Semicircular surgically sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over
the right side frontal, parietal and temporal regions of scalp found extending
from the middle of right side hair margin upto the front of right ear measruig
25cm in length found infected.
5.Diffuses contusion over the whole of left side forehead and left frontal
region of scalp.
6.Infected Bed sores over the whole of occipital region, both parietal eminence
areas and saccral region.
Internal Injuries:
7.On reflecting the scalp skin – Thick sub scalp contusion whole of scalp –
Right side Temporal Bone was found surgically removed and the infected lacerated
Brain matter was found bulging out through this bone gap. Depressed communitted
fracture over the vertex of skull over an area of 4x4cm found compressing the
Brain matter. Multiple radiating fissured fractures over all the bones of vault
skull from this fractured vertex area with fracture seperation of all the
cranial sutural lines. Thick extradural Haematoma and blood clots of about 600
gms noted over the vertex and both sides parietal regions. Bilateral subdural
and sub arachnoid haemorrhages with subdural basal blood clots. Irregular
laceration of whole of right sidecerebral hemishpere with complete softening and
blood clots and with infection by greenish yellow coloured pus. Brain was pale
and oedematous. Intracerebral haemorrhages in both sides. Haemorrhages in the
regions of pons. Thalamus and Mid Brain areas. Multiple communitted fractures
of right Anterior and Middle cranial fossae and irregular multiple fisssured
fractures of all the other cranial fossae of base of skull. Contusion and
fracture of both sides roofs of orbits, cribriform plate and ehtmoidal bone.
All the above mentioned injuries were of antemortem in nature most probabily as
a result of assault by a blunt weapon like heavy wooden log.
Extremities: cyanosed. Heart: Normal in size. All the chambers contained
fluid blood. Valves : Normal. Coronary vessels – patent. great vessels –
Normal. Lungs : c/s both congested and oedematous. Laryunx and hyoid bone :
intact. Stomach : contained 200 ml of light brown coloured semisolid material
with no specific smell. Mucosa – congested Liver, spleen, kidneys : c/s
congested Small intestine : Empty. Mucosa – congested No specific smell made
out. Bladder : Empty. Pelvis – Intact”.
The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to head
injuries involving the vital organ namely the brain.
Thereafter, P.W.18, took up the investigation and on 28.11.2006 at 10.30
A.M. and arrested A-7 and sent him to judicial custody and on 10.12.2006 he
arrested A-8 at 9.00 a.m. on 10.12.06 and recorded his voluntary confession
statement given by him, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.14.
Pursuant to his confession, P.W.18, Investigating Officer recovered wooden log
M.O.3 under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.10 and one
Senthil. Thereafter, on the same day he sent A-8 and recovered material objects
to the Court. Then, P.W.18, Investigating Officer arrested A-9 on 10.01.2007 at
10.00 a.m. near Alangudi Police Station and sent him to judicial custody on the
same day and handed over the case to his successor.
The material objects were despatched to the court with Ex.P-10 requesting
to forward the same for chemical examination. PW-16/Head Clerk in the Court, on
receipt of the same, sent those items with a letter of the court under EX.P-10
to the forensic Laboratory. Exs.P-2 and P-11 are the forensic reports. On
completion of the investigation, the final report was filed against the accused
under Sections 302 read with 34, 307, 323, 325, 326 read with 149 IPC before
the Court.
4.The trial court on a perusal of the documents and after hearing the
learned counsel framed totally eight charges as against all the accused, of
which the appellants in these appeals, are covered under charge Nos.1,2,3,4,6
and 7 which are follows:
i)On 16.11.2006, Accused Nos.3,7,8 and 9 formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and indulged in rioting and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 147 IPC.
ii)The Accused Nos.1,2,4,5 and 6 formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly with deadly weapons and indulged in rioting with an intention to
assault the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed for an offence
punishable under Section 148 IPC.
iii)Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 with a common intention to commit the cause of
the death of the deceased attacked him with deadly weapons, pursuant to which
24.11.2006, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and thereby
the Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 committed an offence punishable under Section 302
IPC.
iv)Accused Nos.4,6,7 and 9 stood in support of A-1 to commit the murder of
the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 IPC.
v)During the same transaction, A-4 cut the middle finger of P.W.2 and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
vi)During the same transaction, A-7 assaulted P.W.2 with stick and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
5.In order to substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 19 marked exhibits Exs.P-1 to P-28 and M.Os.1 to 11.
6.When the accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to
the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against them, they denied
their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.
7.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the prosecution, and after considering the submissions made
on either side, delivered his judgment convicting and sentencing as
aforementioned. Challenging the same, the convicted accused have preferred the
above Appeals. In order to appreciate the facts of the case in the proper
perspective, we have clubbed both the appeals together and accordingly, we are
disposing the same.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants intensively contended that the
origin and genesis of the case is totally suppressed by the prosecution and
instead the prosecution has presented a new case before this Court with false
evidence and fabricated documents. According to him P.Ws.1 and 2 have
categorically stated that the occurrence took place on 16.11.2006 at 03.00 p.m.
and immediately thereafter, P.Ws.1,2 and the victim Chinnadurai were taken to
the hospital by the villagers and P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the Government
Hospital, at Pudukkottai and Chinnadurai who was in serious condition was taken
to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that
immediately after their admission in the hospital, the police arrived at the
Government Hospital, Pudukkottai. But according to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of
Police, he received intimation from the Hospital only at 8.00 p.m. and
thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement
of P.W.1 and returned to the police station by 9.00 p.m. and registered a case
in Crime No.795 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 323,
324 and 307 IPC. Whereas P.W.17, the Medical Officer had stated in his evidence
that P.Ws.1 and 2 were brought to the hospital by 04.10 p.m. Thus, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants by comparing the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14
and 17 put forth the submissions stating that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14 and 17
cumulatively together would go to show that the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 were
brought to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and further P.Ws.1 and
2 in their evidence also have confirmed that the police have arrived at the
hospital immediately after their admission in the hospital. Under such
circumstances, the police should have recorded the statement of P.W.1
immediately after their arrival at the hospital. But P.W.14, stated in his
evidence that he received intimation only by 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he
proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement and returned to the police
station and registered a case at 9.00 p.m. These contradictions found in the
evidence clearly would go to show that the complaint which would have been
recorded by the police immediately after their arrival, should have been
suppressed subsequently and they would have brought another complaint by falsely
implicating the accused in the case. That apart, P.W.2 (father of the deceased)
had also clearly stated in his evidence that the statement was recorded from him
by the police, while he was in hospital. But the said complaint was suppressed
by the prosecution and no proper explanation was given for this. The learned
defence counsel continued his argument saying that it is the evidence of P.W.2
that A-1 had delivered a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased with
Aruval and thereafter, A-6 snatched the same and delivered another cut on the
centre of the head of the deceased. According to prosecution, pursuant to the
arrest and confession of A-6 on 18.11.2006, the police has recovered M.Os.2 and
3, Aruvals and a wooden log respectively under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.8. Thus,
by pointing out the evidence of P.W.2 and arrest of A-6 and the recovery made by
P.W.14 and P.W.18, the learned counsel for the appellants intensively contended
that when it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A-6 snatched the Aruval from A-1 and
delivered the cut, the question of recovery of M.O.2 and 3 Aruvals pursuant to
confession statements of A-1 and A-6 is highly doubtful. In fact, the evidence
of P.W.2 and recovery made by P.Ws.18 and 14 collectively go to prove that the
entire case of the prosecution is a concocted one. Though, it is the case of the
prosecution that the deceased was admitted in Thanjavur Medical College
Hospital, immediately after the occurrence, he had died only on 24.11.2006 but
the entire records pertaining to his treatment was suppressed by the
prosecution. P.W.2, in his evidence stated that before the occurrence took
place there was a commotion for an hour and he had also stated in his evidence
that he is not aware when the police has arrived to the village and whether the
commotion was going on in front of his house before the occurrence. Thus, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that had there been any
commotion in front of the house where 500 to 600 people had assembled to attend
funeral function of the father of A-1 definitely the police would have arrived
at this spot. But the vague answer of P.W.2 would show that the entire case put
forth by the prosecution should be an invented story. The learned counsel has
also very emphatically submitted that there was a delay in sending the First
Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate even though the said report was
registered by P.W.15, even at 9.00 p.m. on 16.11.2006, the same was sent on the
next day viz., 17.11.2006 at 10.00 a.m., which delay was not properly explained.
Further, it is contended that there are lot of infirmities in the evidence of
Prosecution witnesses and subsequent improvement also had been made to suit the
case of prosecution. The contentions submitted on behalf of the appellants
relating to the recovery of some of the M.Os. have not been clearly proved since
all the witnesses examined in this behalf have turned hostile. The other
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2 in his
evidence stated that his signature was obtained from him by the police at the
hospital would show that earlier one another complaint was recorded from P.W.2
which has not been placed before the Court but suppressed. The learned counsel
concluded his submission that the cumulative effect of the contradictions and
infirmities found in the prosecution undoubtedly goes to show that the entire
prosecution case is an invented and distorted story designed by the prosecution
suppressing the real facts before the trial court and therefore, in all
probabilities all the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt
and acquitted of all the charges under which they now stand convicted.
9.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in Ex.P.1
the complaint preferred by P.W.1, the names of all the accused are clearly and
unmistakably mentioned. Similarly, the weapons used by each of the accused and
the overtacts attributed to them have also been clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1.
The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 demonstrably establishes the case of the
prosecution and though the P.W.5 was treated as hostile, his evidence supports
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 so far as the participation of the appellants in
the occurrence and the entire overtacts attributed to them as well the motive
part are concerned. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has clearly stated that A-1 and A-6 came
with aruval at the scene of occurrence under such circumstances, the recovery of
aruval in no way weaken the case of the prosecution. Further, it is the evidence
of P.W.2 that the statement was recorded only at 9.00 p.m. and thus, this piece
of evidence clearly supports the evidence of P.W.14. Under such circumstances,
the evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination that the police
had arrived immediately after their admission, does not assume any significance
to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants that
there should have been earlier complaint. Similarly, though recovery and Mahazar
witnesses turned hostile, the other evidence available on record and the
medical evidence talling with the injuries sustained by the deceased and P.Ws.1
and 2 with the weapons as spoken by P.Ws.1,2 and 5 prove the case. Under such
circumstances, no case has been made out by the appellants to disbelieve the
case of the prosecution except pointing out some minor contradictions here and
there which would be no way helpful to throw away the case of the prosecution.
Ultimately, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court has to be sustained and the
appeals dismissed.
10.We have perused the materials available on record and carefully
considered the submissions made on both sides.
11.The occurrence had taken place in the broad day light in the presence
of P.Ws.1,2 who are the brother and father of the deceased. P.W.5 is the nephew
of P.W.1 and grand son of P.W.2. Of the 19 witnesses examined P.W.1,2 and 5 are
alone eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.3,4 and 7 to 10 and P.W.12 have
turned hostile. But of course, they are not material witnesses to speak anything
about the occurrence. In this connection, P.W.5 though had clearly spoken about
the occurrence in the chief examination, she had been treated as hostile witness
for the simple reason that P.W.5 had not supported the prosecution case
regarding the recovery of some of the M.Os. and his attestation in the Mahazars.
Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of P.W.5 by the defence
lawyer adversely affecting the veracity of his evidence. Therefore, we accept
this evidence serving as corroborative piece of evidence to that of P.Ws.1 and
2. As stated supra, the very presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during the occurrence is
strongly supported by the injuries sustained by them. These injured eye
witnesses speak about the motive part of for the murder. A perusal of Ex.P.1,
clearly reveals that after the death of the father of A-1, till 16.11.2006 at
03.00 p.m., A-1 and their relatives were creating commotion every now and then
regarding the taking the body of the father of A-1 through the street where the
house of the deceased is situated in spite of the fact that a separate public
path way was available to take the body to cremation. A careful scrutiny of the
evidence of prosecution witnesses would show a dispute was also pending between
the family of the deceased and of A-1. It was in such circumstances, this
occurrence had taken place. So far as the motive part is concerned, in our
opinion, the appellants have miserably failed to raise even an iota of doubt in
the minds of the Courts. But on the contrary, the learned counsel for the
appellants made an attempt to shatter the case of the prosecution by pointing
out some infirmities found in the prosecution witnesses to establish that the
occurrence would not have taken place in the manner put forth by the prosecution
and the entire prosecution story as a distorted story designedly framed by false
evidence and fabricated documents.
12.Now let us analyse the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants one by one. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the police arrived at
the Government Hospital immediately after their admission and it is also in the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were admitted in the hospital within a short
span of time from the time of occurrence which took place at 03.00 p.m. on
16.11.2006 and added that P.W.17, the Medical Officer, in his evidence stated
that P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the hospital at 04.10 p.m. on 16.11.2006,
under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.14 that he on receipt of
intimation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and
returned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.795 of 2006 by
9.00 p.m. is not an acceptable contention. Further, according to the learned
counsel, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 17 leads to a conclusion that the police
would have arrived in the evening itself on the date of occurrence and
immediately thereafter, P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police should have recorded a
Report much earlier which report is now suppressed and the present Ex.P.1 is
concocted and substituted.
13.We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. On going through
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find that they did not state anything about the
exact time of arrival of the police at Pudukkottai Government Hospital and what
they have stated is immediately after their admission in the hospital the police
had arrived. Further more, P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that he was
unconscious for more than one hour immediately after the admission. Under such
circumstances, the doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to
throw away the case of the prosecution is not worthy of consideration. In fact
P.W.2 in his cross examination had clearly stated that a complaint was recorded
by P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 9.00 p.m. on 16.11.2006 which clearly
corroborates the evidence of P.W.14. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. With regard to
the other submission made by the defence counsel for the appellants that the
evidence of P.W.2, has stated that after A-1 delivered a cut with Aruval on the
head of the deceased, A-6 snatched the same from A-1 and inflicted a cut on the
head of the deceased. Therefore, the seizure of two aruvals pursuant to their
confession would go to show that the prosecution case is concocted one. We are
of the opinion that the careful analysis of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1
would go to show that A-6 has also possessed with an aruval at the time of
occurrence. No conclusion can be even inferred with regard to the recovery of
the two aruvals on the contention that each of A-1 and A-6 did not possess
separate aruvals and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the theory of
defence. No doubt there was some delay in despatching the First Information
Report to the Court. In our view, under such circumstances of the case, this
delay alone is not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution. In fact,
P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, explains the delay saying that he recorded
the statement at 9.00 p.m. and on the ext day morning at 10.00 a.m., the same
was sent to the Judicial Magistrate. As stated supra, though all the mahazar
witnesses have turned hostile, the unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5
which is cogent and convincing coupled with the medical evidence clearly and
demonstrably establish the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. P.W.11,
the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy 8 days after the treatment in the
hospital, of course had stated that the crushed injuries found on the bony part
of the head of the deceased, in her admitted assumption would have probably been
inflicted by wooden log. On carefully going through the ocular testimony of
P.Ws.1,2 and 5 and taking into consideration the nature and situs of the
injuries as described in the Post Mortem Certificate, providing supporting to
the veracity of the case, we are of the firm view that the case against A-1, A-6
and A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and case
as against A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC are well
established and, therefore, we reject the submission of the learned defence
counsel to throw away the prosecution case on the minor contradictions and
omissions appearing in this case cannot at all be acceded to.
Further, the prosecution case on these insignificant and minor
contradictions and omissions appearing here and there which would normally occur
in every case in such circumstances, in this case will never serve as a valid
ground to throw away the case overboard.
14.In fine, we are of the opinion that no worthy reason has been made out
by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants to allow the appeals.
15.In the result, we confirm the conviction and the sentences passed by
the trial Court and dismiss the appeals.
It is reported that the accused are on bail. The Sessions Judge concerned
is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit them
to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
sms.
To:
The Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station
Pudukkottai District