Govindaraj vs State by Inspector of Police

R. Regupathi, J.—The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 227 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, for

offences under Sections 427, 341, 342, 302 read with 34 and 326 read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 25.6.2007,

convicted and sentenced him as given below:

Charges Conviction Sentence

Under Section 427 IPC Acquitted of -

for mischief and causing the charge

damage joining with other

deceased accused

Section 341 IPC, altered Found guilty R.I. for one year with fine

to Section 342 IPC for of Rs. 200/-, in default

wrongfully confining the to undergo 3 months S.I.

deceased Chinnappan

Under Section 302 r/w 34 Found guilty Life imprisonment with

IPC for sharing the common fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in

intention of the other two default to undergo

deceased accused in causing one year R.I.

the murder of Chinnappan

Under Section 326 r/w 34 Found guilty 10 years R.I. with

IPC for sharing the common fine of Rs. 1,000/- in

intention of other two default to undergo

deceased accused in inflicting one year R.I.

grievous injury to P.W.1

Addl. charge u/s 324 Found guilty 3 years R.I. with fine

IPC for voluntarily causing hurt of Rs. 500/-, in default to

to P.W.1 by dangerous weapon undergo 6 months R.I.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court.

The appellant was alleged to have committed the offence along with two other accused, namely, Thangavel and Vairan and since, pending trial,

the other two accused died, the trial of the case proceeded against the present appellant. The deceased accused Thangavel and the deceased

accused Vairan will be referred to as DA-1 and DA-2 respectively for the sake of convenience.

The case of the prosecution, as unveiled by the oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly stated as hereunder:

(a) Some time prior to the date of occurrence, a buffalo belonging to DA-1 was found missing and for which, the deceased was suspected by the

accused. However, few days subsequently, the buffalo came back on its own and since the deceased was suspected by the accused, there was a

wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused, during which, the deceased was alleged to have abused the accused that he would kill

them. Thereafter, there was a panchayat between the accused and the deceased. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence.

(b) The further case is that on 14.12.92 at about 2.00 a.m., DA-1, having a torch light on the one hand and a koduval on the other hand, DA-2

armed with a spear and the appellant having a koduval and a torch light, came to the house of the deceased and knocked at the door of the house,

where the deceased was sleeping. P.Ws.1 to 3, mother, father and brother of the deceased and P.Ws.5 and 6, neighbours were present at that

time and witnessed the occurrence. Since the door was not opened, the appellant and DA-2 climbed the roof and with a spear fitted with a long

bamboo stick, stabbed the deceased and unable to bear the injury, the deceased opened the door in order to escape, but DA-1 who was standing

outside, caught hold of him and attacked him with the koduval. Thereafter, the hands of the deceased were tied and all the accused delivered

indiscriminate cuts on all over the parts of the deceased in which, the appellant armed with koduval caused injuries on the face, neck and shoulder.

At that time, when P.W.1, mother of the deceased, intervened, she was also attacked by the accused. The appellant also caused injury with the

back side of the koduval on the back of her chest.

(c) To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and other material objects, viz. M.Os.1 to 10.

(d) P.W.1, mother of the deceased, in her evidence, stated that due to the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the

buffalo belonging to DA-1 was found missing, the accused threatened the deceased with his life and on 14.12.92, the appellant armed with a

koduval and a torch light, while DA-1 armed with an aruval and a torch light and DA-2 armed with a spear, came to the house of the deceased at

2.00 a.m. and knocked at the door. On hearing the noise, P.Ws.1 to 3 came out and saw the accused with the help of the street light and the light

which was burning in front of verandah. Since the deceased was afraid of the accused, he remained inside without opening the door. But, DA-1

directed the appellant and DA-2 to climb the roof, pursuant to which, both climbed the roof and DA-2 with the spear fitted with a long bamboo

stick, stabbed the deceased and unable to bear the injury, the deceased came out opening the door. At that time, DA-1 assaulted the deceased

with the aruval and caused injuries on his hand and thereafter, the hands of the deceased were tied and all the three accused delivered cuts

repeatedly. In spite of the request made by her not to cut him, she was also assaulted by the accused. The deceased died instantaneously and she

also became unconscious. After receiving information, the Village Administrative Officer came to the scene of occurrence and P.W.1 gave a

complaint, Ex.P.1. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital.

(e) P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and both the eye witnesses corroborate the evidence of P.W.1.

Though P.Ws.5 and 6, neighbours of the deceased, were examined as eye witnesses, since they did not support the case of the prosecution, they

have been treated as hostile.

(f) P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, who speaks about the motive part of the prosecution, as referred earlier and about the panchayat

convened, in which the deceased was directed to pay Rs. 600/- as fine. He has stated that on receiving information, he came to the scene of

occurrence, found the deceased lying dead with injuries and finding P.W.1 with injuries, he took her to the hospital.

(g) P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, on receipt of information from his village menial at 6.30 a.m. on 15.12.92, reached the scene of

occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. On enquiry with P.W.1, a compliant was given by her and he reduced the same into writing.

P.W.1 affixed her thumb impression in Ex.P.1. Thereafter, P.W.7 accompanied by P.W.1, went to police station and lodged the complaint,

Ex.P.1, to P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 719 of 1992 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and

324 IPC. P.W.11 prepared printed F.I.R. and despatched the same to Court and copies to superior officers. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the printed

F.I.R.

(h) P.W.11 took up investigation on instructions from the Inpsector of Police and reached the scene of occurrence at 10.15 a.m., prepared

observation mahazar and rough sketch, Exs.P.2 and P.9 respectively. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 11.15

a.m. and 3.00 p.m. Ex.P.10 is the inquest report. He sent requisition Ex.P.4 along with the dead body to the hospital through P.W.10 for

conducting autopsy. He sent P.W.1 to the hospital with a police memo. He examined the witnesses present at the scene of occurrence, viz.

P.Ws.1 to 7. He recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth, M.Os.1 and 2, blood-stained koduval - M.O.3, long bamboo stick - M.O.4,

nylon rope - M.O.5, iron spear - M.O.9, broken tiles - M.O.10, blood-stained lungi - M.O.6, under Form 95 and despatched the same to the

Court. M.Os.7 and 8, the clothings of the deceased, after they were produced by the constable, P.W.10, who was present at the time of post-

mortem, were seized under Form 95 and sent to Court. The seizure mahazars, Exs.P.3 and P.7, were attested by P.W.7. The further investigation

was, thereafter, handed over to P.W.12.

(i) P.W.8, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 16.12.92 at 11.20 a.m. and found the

following external injuries:

External injuries:

An incised injury over right side forehead of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms.

An incised injury of size 4 x 2 x 2 cms. Above right eyebrow.

An incised injury over right cheek of size 15 cm. X 3 cm. X 3 cm. extending from right earlobule upto right ala of Nose.

An incised injury over left side cheek of size 12 x 3 x 3 cms. extending from a point 5 cms below left ear lobule to middle of the upper lip of left

side. Exposing oral cavity tongue and mandible.

An incised injury of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms. over submental region.

An incised injury over the front of the neck of size 8 x 3 x 3 cms. exposing great vessels and trachea.

An incised injury over right scapula of size 10 x 3 x 3 cms. exposing bones and muscles.

An incised injury of size 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over right shoulder.

An incised injury over right side of abdomen right of umbilicus of size 8 x 2 x 2 cms. with intestines protruding through the wound.

A contusion of size 5 x 5 cms. over left side thigh lower 1/3rd.

An incised injury 5 x 3 x 3 cms. over nape of neck.

An incised injury of size 2 x 2 x 1 cm. above 5 cms. above injury No. 9.

Ex.P.5 is the post-mortem certificate. The doctor has opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple

stab injuries sustained about 30 to 36 hours prior to autopsy. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the above said injuries could have been

caused with weapons like M.Os.3 and 9.

(j) P.W.9 is the doctor who examined P.W.1 on 15.12.92 at 5.35 p.m. and he noted the following injuries:

A contusion reddish in colour in left forearm close to wrist 1"" x 1 inch.

A contusion reddish in colour in the left forearm in the proximal 1/4 x 2 x 2 inches.

A contusion left scapular region 3 x 3 inches reddish.

A lacerated wound in left arm 1 x 1 x 1/2 inches covered with blood clot.

A lacerated wound in left infra scapular region 1"" x 1 inch x 1/2 inch covered with blood clot.

A contusion in left knee reddish 3 x 3 inches.

X-ray left fore arm - fracture

X-ray knee left fracture patella

The doctor issued Ex.P.6, the wound certificate, opining that injuries 2 and 6 are grievous and injuries 1, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature. P.W.9

has stated in his evidence that the above said injuries could have been caused with the backside of the weapon like M.O.3.

(k) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up investigation from P.W.11 and after examination of P.W.10 and other medical witnesses and after the

receipt of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5, on conclusion of investigation, filed the final report on 16.4.93 against the accused for offences

punishable under Sections 302, 326, 321, 427 r/w 341 IPC.

(l) When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the

accused claimed innocence and pleaded not guilty. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on the side of defence. The learned trial

Judge, on completion of evidence and on hearing the submissions of both sides, finding the appellant guilty for the offences charged, convicted and

sentenced him as aforementioned.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant is Govindasamy, but it has been mentioned as Govindaraj and

hence, the occurrence having taken place during night time, there is all possibility of substitution of the appellant in the case by falsely implicating

him; though the occurrence took place at 2.00 a.m., the Village Administrative Officer reached the scene of occurrence only at 6.30 a.m. and

further it was reported to the police at 8.00 a.m. and there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R.; the medical evidence is not consistent with the ocular

testimony of the eye witnesses; the independent witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6 having turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is unreliable, since

they are interested witnesses; the other accused having died before the trial, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though there is a contradiction in the name of the appellant, the name of the

father of the appellant has been correctly mentioned; that it is only after receiving information through the village menial, P.W.7 reached the scene

of occurrence and since the occurrence took place in the early morning, P.W.7 reached the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. and thereafter, he

took P.W.1, who was also injured, along with him to the police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 and hence, there is no delay in recording

the first information report. He further submits that the appellant and other accused are known to the witnesses, since they are living in the same

village and the availability of street light and the light burning in the verandah had been spoken to by the witnesses and hence, there is no difficulty in

identifying the accused. The motive put forth by the prosecution is also strong enough to prove the case against the accused and thus, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has well established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

We have perused the entire materials available on record and also heard the submissions of both sides.

It is not in dispute that the deceased Chinnappan died due to homicidal violence. The evidence of P.W.8 and the post-mortem certificate,

Ex.P.5, issued by him, clearly show that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries and it is the evidence of

P.W.8 that the said injuries could have been caused by weapons like, M.Os.3 and 9. Hence, there can be no difficulty in holding that the deceased

died of homicidal violence.

The question that is to be decided is whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant,

along with the other accused, caused those injuries on the deceased resulting in his death. The case of the prosecution as brought out through

P.W.1 is that on the date of occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased with deadly weapons pre-planning themselves to attack

the deceased. Since the door was bolted from inside, the appellant and DA-2 climbed the roof and after removing the tiles, stabbed the deceased

with a spear fitting it with a long stick. When the deceased came out unable to bear the injury, he was caught by DA-1, who assaulted him and

thereafter, the hands of the deceased were tied and all the accused inflicted indiscriminate cuts, in which the appellant delivered cut on the

deceased with a koduval. Though, P.W.1 prayed and persuaded the accused not to cut the deceased, she was also assaulted and the appellant

caused injury on the back and chest of P.W.1 with the backside of the weapon.

The above evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the medical evidence, which shows that the deceased sustained 12 injuries on his body,

resulting in instantaneous death and P.W.1 sustained 6 injuries, in which two injuries are grievous in nature. Keeping the animosity in mind, the

accused had entered the house of the deceased in the mid night armed with deadly weapons and after tying the deceased, they indiscriminately cut

him. The conduct of the appellant and the other accused appears to be fatal on the wealthy materials through the evidence of the eye witnesses to

substantiate the case of the prosecution. Merely because of the reason that P.Ws.1 to 4 are closely related to the deceased, their evidence cannot

be simply brushed aside on the ground of interested witnesses. They are natural witnesses, who were present during night time and they were

sleeping at the time when the accused have reached the scene of occurrence. It is only on hearing the noise of the accused, P.W.1 and others

woke up and witnessed the occurrence. In fact, P.W.1 is an injured eye witness, who suffered injuries during the course of same transaction and

the evidence of other witnesses also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The medical evidence also lends assurance in corroboration to the

ocular testimony of the eye witnesses.

In view of the above overwhelming evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is

well-founded and no interference is called for. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed.