Danapal and 3 others vs State

Judgement pronounced by N.Dhinakar, J.—The appellants are A.1 to A. 3 and A. 6 in S.C.No.125 of 1989 on the file of the learned

Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. They were tried along with two other accused, namely, A.4 and A.5 before the learned Sessions Judge. Though the

learned Sessions Judge framed four charges, he convicted A.1 and A.6 under charge No.2 for an offence u/s 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34,

I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for causing simple injury to P.W.I, the brother of the

deceased Jayakumar by fisting him on his face. A.1 to A.3 were also convicted for an offence u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. on an

allegation that they caused the death of Jayakumar, the brother of P.W. 1, by the fist accused beating him with a casuarina stick, M.O.5 and the

second accused assaulting him with an iron pipe and the third accused beating him with a casuarina stick on the back of his chest and right hand.

A.1 and A.6 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence u/s 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and

A.1 to A.3 were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal. In this judgment, appellants A.1 to A.3 and A.6 as well as the

acquitted accused A.4 and A.5 will be referred to as A.1 to A.6, as and when the context arises.

The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows:-

P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased and P.Ws.6 and 7 are the employees of the deceased in a provision store run by him at Thiravanmiyur.

A.1 to A.6 were the residents of Palavakkam Colony. The deceased was running a provision store in the name and style of ""Sudha Stores"" at

Palavakkam Muttukkadu, Mahabalipuram Road. Behind the said shop, P.W.1 was residing with his wife along with his deceased brother. P.Ws.6

and 7 were also residing in the same house. At about 8.30 A.M. on 19.6.1988, the first and the second accused went to the provision store of the

deceased and the first accused asked the deceased to lend him 5 kilos of rice. The deceased refused saying that he will not give rice unless he pays

the old balance, since the first accused was already in arrears of payment of Rs.50 for the earlier purchase. The first and the second accused

shouted at the deceased, pulled the shutter and threw the provisions on the road. P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 and the deceased asked them not to create a

scene. They closed the shop and went to the house. The first and the second accused threatened the deceased that they will not allow him to run

the shop unless the articles are lent to them. At about 8.30 P.M. on 19.6.1988, A.1 to A.6 rushed towards P.W.1, who was fetching water from a

water tank and the first accused while asking P.W.1 as to whether he is the supporter of his brother, pushed him down and fisted on his face. A.6

also fisted on the right cheek of P.W.1. The third accused pulled the tuft of P.W.1. P.W.1 ran towards the field, chased by A.1 to A.6, who could

not succeed in catching him. The deceased went for a movie and was returning with his employees, P.Ws.6 and 7. At about 10.00 P.M, when the

deceased and P.Ws.6 and 7 reached the Office of the City Water Supply at Palavakkam, A.1 to A.3 went there and the first accused stated

Here comes Jayakumar"". Thereafter, the first accused took a casuarina stick which was lying nearby and caught hold of the shirt of the deceased

and beat him with the stick. The second accused took an iron pipe from the workshop and similarly, the third accused took casuarina stick which

was lying in front of the hotel, and beat him. P.Ws.6 and 7 saw the incident. A.1 to A.3 ran away from the scene. Information was given to P.W.1.

P.W.1 reached the scene and thereafter took the deceased to the police station at Thiruvanmiyur. At the police station, the deceased gave a

statement to P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, which was reduced into writing, which stands marked as

Ex.P.11. On the basis of Ex.P.11 given by the deceased, a case in Crime No.889 of 1988 was registered against the accused under Sections 147,

148 and 307, I.P.C. Ex.P.12 is a copy of the printed first information report. After the registration of the crime, the deceased was also questioned

and his statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded at 10.35 P.M. which stands marked as Ex.P.13 in this case. He also questioned and recorded

the statement of P.W.6 as well as P.W.1. The deceased and P.W.1 were sent to the Government Royapettah Hospital with a memo.

On receiving the memo, P.W.9, the duty doctor at Government Royapettah Hospital examined P.W.1 at about 11.10 P.M. When questioned,

P.W.1 told him that he was attacked by 20 known persons at about 8.30 PM. He found a contusion with abrasion on the right side of the face.

Ex.P.9 is a copy of the accident register issued in respect of the injuries noted by him on P.W.1. He also examined the deceased Jayakumar and

when questioned, the doctor was informed that he was attacked by three known persons with casuarina stick at about 9.30 P.M. On examination,

two lacerations on the parietal area and multiple linear contusion on the back of shoulders were noticed. The doctor also noticed multiple

contusions with abrasions on both the legs and arms. Ex.P.10 is a copy of the accident register in respect of the injuries noted by the doctor,

P.W.9 on the deceased. The deceased and P.W.1 returned to the house and went back to the hospital on the next day. The deceased was

admitted into the hospital on the next day.

P.W.10, the sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation in the case and reached the scene of occurrence at about 11.20 P.M. where he

prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.14 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.15. He also seized M.Os.5 to 7 under a Mahazar Ex.P.16. He

questioned and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He seized M.Os.1 to 3 under mahazar a Ex.P.17. In the meantime, the injured

Jayakumar who was undergoing treatment died at 7.20 P.M. on 22.6.1988 and on receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P.2 from the Hospital, the

crime was altered to one u/s 302, I.P.C. by preparing express reports. Ex.P.18 is the copy of the said express report.

On receipt of the registration of a grave crime, P.W.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the case and he visited the scene

of occurrence by 9.30 A.M. He thereafter proceeded to the Government Royapettah Hospital, where he conducted inquest over the body of

Jayakumar between 11.15 A.M. and 1.10 P.M. on 22.6.1988, in the presence of panchayatdars, during which he questioned and recorded the

Statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 7 and others. Ex.P.19 is the inquest report. A requisition was issued to conduct autopsy on the body of Jayakumar.

On receipt of the requisition, P.W.4, the doctor attached to the Government Royapettah Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of Jayakumar

and found the following injuries:-

Small irregular shaped abrasion over anterolateral aspect of lower part of right leg 13 cms. above the right medial malleolus 0.5 x 0.4 cms.

Small abrasion over lateral aspect of dorsum of root of right middle finger 0.5 x 0.25 cms.

Small abrasion 2x1 cms. over dorsum of head of right radius.

Small abrasion irregular in shape over lateral aspect of lower end of right arm 2 x 1 cm.

Linear abrasion over posterior-lateral aspect of right arm 3 cms. above the elbow joint 5 x 1 cm.

Two linear parallel abrasions with contusion one below the other over the anterolateral surface of lower third of left leg 3x2 cms. 13 cms above

the left ankle joint. On dissection: contusion of subcutaneous tissue seen underneath the abrasion.

Irregular abrasion over anterior surface of middle third of left leg 4x3 cms. 15 cms. above the left ankle joint.

An irregular abrasion over the upper third of left leg 12 cms. below the patella.

Abrasion over posterior lateral aspect of upper part of left arm 4x2 cms.

Contusion over posterio-lateral aspect of upper part of left shoulder joint. On dissection: Bruising of subcutaneous tissue seen over an area of

1 x 2.5 cms.

Sutured wound over the middle of right parietal region close to midline. On dissection: contusion of scalp tissue over the inter parietal region

present 4x2 cms.

Sutured wound over the right frontal region 15 cms above the medial end of right eyebrow. On dissection: contusion of scalp tissue present

over an area of 3 x 2cms.

Sutured wound over the left frontal region 7 cms. above the middle of left eyebrow 1 cm. in length. Margins are irregular. On dissection:

contusion of left frontalis muscle seen over an area of 3 x 2 cms.

On dissection: Sub dural haemorrhage seen all over the brain. Localised subarachnoid haemorrhage seen over the supra lateral surface of left

frontal region present. Cut section: Multiple petechial haemorrhages seen within the substance of both hemispheres"". He issued Ex.P.4, the Post-

mortem Certificate with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of head injuries.

P.W.11, who was investigating the case, continued his investigation and questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. The material

objects were sent to the Court with a request to forward them for analysis and the Court by sending them obtained Ex.P.7, the report of the

Chemical Analyst and Ex. P. 8, the Serologist''s report. The accused, when searched, could not be traced the information officer arrested A.1, A.

3 and A. 5 at about 8.30 P.M. On 6.7.1988. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.12, the successor-in-office after his transfer, who after

verifying the investigation conducted by P.W.11 and after questioning and recording the statements of the witnesses, lodged a final report against

the accused on 25.11.1988.

When questioned u/s 313, Cr.P.C. the accused have denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. According to the prosecution, the

occurrence took place at about 10.00 P.M. and it was witnessed by P.Ws.6 and 7, the employees of the deceased Jayakumar. Both have in their

evidence stated that when they were returning from the theatre at about 10.00 P.M. along with the deceased, the accused way laid them and

attacked. It is their further case that immediately after the incident, an information was passed on to P.W.1 and thereafter, the deceased was

removed to the police station, where the deceased gave the statement, Ex.P.11 to the Sub-Inspector, P.W.10. A perusal of Ex.P.11 would show

that the deceased had come out with a statement, wherein he had stated that when he was returning from the theatre with his employees, accused 1

to 3 beat him with sticks and when he fell down, he was beaten by six others. The deceased was sent to the hospital along with P.W.1 for

treatment, since P.W.1 also sustained injuries at the hands of A.1 and A.6 at 8.30 P.M. on the said date. The duty doctor P.W.9 examined the

deceased as well as P.W.1 and found the injuries as noted by him in the respective accident registers. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the

deceased Jayakumar sustained injuries at about 10.00 P.M. and it was witnessed by P.Ws.6 and 7.

Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked by A.1 to A. 3 and fatal injuries were caused by them, we are unable to

find from the materials that the said fatal injuries were actually caused by A.1 to A.3, nor are we able to say that the accused had a common

intention in causing the death of the deceased Jayakumar. A perusal of Ex.P.11 indicates that when he was returning from the theatre with his

employees, the first accused saw him and immediately called A.2 and A.3 and told them ""Here comes Jayakumar"". It is the case of the deceased

as put forth by him in Ex. P. 11 that accused 1 to 3 on seeing him took the casuarina stick which was lying nearby and beat him and when he fell

down he was beaten by several others. There is no investigation by the investigating agency as to who are the persons who also joined A.1 to A.3

in beating the deceased. A perusal of Ex.P.11 does not also show that A.1 to A.3 intended to cause the death of the deceased Jayakumar by

beating him on the vital parts. All that the deceased in his statement Ex.P.11 has stated is that he was beaten by A.1 to A. 3 and after he fell down,

several others also beat him. This statement of course was improved by the prosecution through Ex.P.13, the statement of the deceased u/s 161

which according to the prosecution, came into existence within five minutes of Ex.P.11. Apart from the fact that it is impossible for the investigating

agency to have recorded the statement of the deceased u/s 161, Cr.P.C. within five minutes of recording Ex.P.11, we are also not able to place

any reliance upon Ex.P.13, since it is a an improvement on Ex.P.11. The deceased had no case as against A.1 that he beat him on his head. It is

impossible for us to hold that within five months he had come out with a version implicating the first accused with the overt act of beating him on the

head. We do not place any reliance on Ex.P.13 since the said statement also reached the court belatedly. The statement given in Ex.P.11 is

supported by the evidence of the doctor, P.W.9 to whom it was stated that the deceased was beaten by three known persons. The doctor also

noted the said statement in Ex.P.10, the copy of the accident register. The fact remains that the deceased was beaten not only by A.1 to A. 3 but

also by several others, while he was returning from the theatre and there is no material before us to hold that the particular injury which resulted in

his death was caused by the first accused. There are also no materials on record to claim that the accused had any intention of causing the death of

Jayakumar. Even according to the prosecution, the meeting between the accused and the deceased was a chance encounter, since the deceased

was returning from the theatre and was seen by the accused on the road, and thereafter, they beat the deceased with sticks which were lying

nearby. They did not cause any injury on any of the vital parts, as could be seen from Ex.P.11. One of the injuries which caused the death was on

the head and there is no evidence as to who caused the said injury. In the case on hand, there is also no material to show that the accused shared a

the common intention between themselves, and in the absence of any investigation as regards complicity of other persons mentioned in Ex.P.11,

we find that accused 1 to 3 cannot be convicted u/s 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction under the said

Section. There is medical evidence to show that the deceased sustained fracture, on account of the beatings and on account of the injuries

sustained by him. Therefore, we feel that accused 1 to 3 could only be convicted u/s 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. since they must have had

the intention to cause grievous injuries when they beat him with casuarina sticks which were lying there. We accordingly, set aside the conviction of

A.1 to A.3 u/s 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and, instead, they are convicted u/s 326, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and for the said conviction,

each of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

Regarding the conviction of A.1 and A. 6, u/s 323, read with Section 34, I.P.C. we are of the view that the said conviction cannot be sustained,

in view of the statement made by P.W.1 to the doctor P.W.9, when he was examined on the night of 19.6.1988. When the doctor questioned him

as to the cause of the injury, the doctor was informed that he was beaten by 20 known persons which is totally contradictory to the present version

of P.W.1, who had come out with a different story by stating that he was beaten by two persons, namely, A.1 and A.6. Further, the said charge

relates to an incident which took place at about 8.30 P.M. unconnected to the present prosecution case, which had taken place at about 10.00

P.M. This is a misjoinder of not only the charges but also the parties. In view of the contradictions found in the evidence of P.W.1 and the doctor,

P.W.9, we find it not safe to convict A.1 and A.6 under Charge No.2. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of A.1 and A.6, u/s

323, read with Section 34, I.P.C.

In the result, A.1 and A.6 are acquitted of the charges u/s 323, read with Section 34, I.P.C. A.1 to A.3 are convicted u/s 326, read with

Section 34, I.P.C. and for the said conviction, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appeal is

disposed of with the modification in the conviction and sentence. The Sessions Court shall take steps to commit the accused to jail to undergo the

remaining period of sentence.