Muthusamy vs The State

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal

convicting the accused u/s 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment made in S.C. No. 54 of 2003, dated 31.3.2003.

The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., when P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Chinnasamy were sitting in front of

P.W.3''s house and were chatting after attending the betrothal function of P.W.3''s son, the accused came and questioned P.W.3 as to why he did

not invite him to the said function. When the deceased interfered, the accused told him that due to the deceased''s intervention very often, there

happens to be a fight between his relatives and him and that he told the deceased not to interfere in his family affairs and there arose a wordy

altercation between them. Immediately, he went to his house and came back with a ""Koduvaal"" and cut the deceased on the left side of his neck.

After receiving the cut injury on his neck, the deceased started running. The accused chased him and cut the deceased on the left bottom of the

shoulder, left armpit and at the back side of the right shoulder. After attacking the deceased, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.

This occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3.

[b] The injured was taken to Namakkal Government Hospital by the witnesses, where he was given the first aid. P.W.5, the doctor attached to the

said hospital gave the treatment to the injured and gave Ex.P.3-Accident Register. Thereafter, he was taken to Salem Government Hospital for

further treatment at about 9.30 p.m., wherein he was given treatment by P.W.11-Dr. Manimegalai, who gave Ex.P.12-Accident Register. But,

despite treatment, the injured died in the hospital.

[c] P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Vaazhavanthi Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on 01.06.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. received

a wireless message about the incident. But, due to the non-availability of transport facility he was not able to go to the scene of occurrence. On

02.06.2002, at about 2.20 a.m., he again received a wireless message from Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College

Hospital Out Post Police Station that the injured Chinnasamy had died. At about 7.00 a.m., on 02.06.2002, on reaching the Out Post Police

Station, he received the Death Intimation, Ex.P.2 and went to the Mortuary, wherein P.W.1 had given the complaint Ex.P.1. The Investigating

Officer sent information to the Puduchathiram Inspector who was in-charge of the Senthamangalam Police Station. Based on the complaint given

by P.W.1, he prepared the First Information Report, Ex.13 in Crime No. 129.2002 u/s 302 IPC and sent the Printed FIR and Ex.P.1 to the court

concerned through P.w.8. The copies of the FIR were also forwarded to the higher officials.

[d] P.W.13, who was the Inspector of Puduchathiram Police Station, at the relevant point of time, took up the further investigation upon receiving

the FIR copy on 02.06.2002 at 11.00 a.m. He went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 12.00 p.m.

and 3.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars through Ex.P.16-the Inquest Report. He also enquired the witnesses and recorded

their statements.

[e] After inquest, the dead body was sent for Postmortem along with a requisition, Ex.P.12. P.W.12, Dr. R. Vallinayagam, attached to the

Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, upon receiving requisition on 02.06.2002 at about 4.15 p.m., conducted autopsy on the

dead body at 4.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:

An oblique sutured cut injury present over upper aspect of left side of neck 9 x 2 cm x bone deep cutting blood vessels, nerves and muscles

below it cut fracture of C3 vertebrate present on left side.

An oblique sutured cut injury present on right scapular region of back 9x2 cm x bone deep cut fracture of scapula present beneath.

An oblique sutured cut injury present on left scapular region of back 6 x 1 cm x bone deep cut fracture of scapula present.

An oblique sutured cut injury present on left axillary region 8 x 1 x 1 cm.

A transverse sutured injury present on left lumbar region 5 x 1 x 1 cm.

A superficial cut injury present over in the inter-scapular region of back 6 cm [anti mortem injuries].

Ex.P.17 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by P.W.12 wherein he had opined that the deceased appeared to have died out of shock and

haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.

[f] In continuation of his investigation, the Investigating Officer went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.8-the Observation Mahazar and

Ex.P.17-rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. At about 8.00 p.m., on the same day, he recovered M.O.3-blood stained earth and M.O.4-

sample earth under the cover of Ex.P.9-Mahazar. On 03.06.2002 at 3.00 p.m., the investigating officer arrested the accused in the presence of

witnesses. The accused came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.P.10, pursuant to

which M.O.1-Koduvaal has been recovered in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P.11-Mahazar. The material objects recovered from the place

of occurrence and from the dead body and the material object recovered pursuant to the confession of the accused were all subjected to chemical

analysis which resulted in two reports, viz., Exs.P.6 and 7-Chemical Analyst Report and Serologist Report respectively. The Investigating Officer

also enquired the doctors concerned and recorded their statements also. On completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the

accused.

When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, he denied the complicity of the offence and pleaded ignorance.

On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined, 17 exhibits were marked and 4 material objects were produced. No oral or

documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence side. The Trial Judge, on hearing the arguments advanced on either side, found the

accused guilty u/s 302 IPC and awarded the sentence as stated supra. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant/accused has preferred

this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the accused is a distant relative to the deceased and the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses as put forth by P.Ws.1 to 3 who are stated to be the eye witnesses and the dispute is only on a wordy quarrel between the

accused and his brothers and the deceased had interfered and in that course only he has been attacked and there is no intention on the part of the

accused to cause the death of the deceased person. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Sessions

Judge, Namakkal is not sustainable, and at best, the conviction could be made against the accused only u/s 304 (Part I) IPC. He would also draw

the attention of the Court that the injuries caused to the deceased person are on a spur of the moment and there is no pre-meditated murder of the

deceased.

We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. His argument is that the eye witnesses, who had deposed in

respect of the incident is brother of the deceased namely, P.W.1 and brothers of the accused namely, P.Ws2 and 3 and they have categorically

stated the incident against the accused and their evidence cannot be assailed in any way and their evidence would show the intention of the accused

to cause the death of the deceased and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained. He would

also drew the attention of this Court to the injuries sustained by the deceased which are corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.5 and

P.W.12 and as per their evidence, the deceased person had sustained six injuries and those six injuries were inflicted upon the vital parts of the

deceased person and the cause of death was due to the said injuries and the profused bleeding and shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries.

Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that there was no intention to cause death cannot be sustained.

We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced on either side. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 1.6.2002 at about

4 p.m., in front of the house of the accused and in the said incident, the accused and one of the brothers of the accused had a wordy quarrel with

the accused in respect of not inviting him for the betrothal ceremony and the said deceased Chinnasamy had intervened and while pacifying the

parties over the dispute, the accused had suddenly enraged upon the action of the deceased and had quarrelled with Chinnasamy that he should

not interfere in the dispute which is between him and his brothers and immediately he went inside and took Koduval with him and had immediately

attacked on his left neck and on getting the cut injury on his left neck, the injured Chinnasamy ran away and further the accused had chased him

and again inflicted a cut injury on his left shoulder and thereafter on his thoracic and on his left abdomen and also a cut injury on the right shoulder.

After receiving the cut injuries at the hands of the accused, the deceased Chinnasamy fell down on the thar road and when the brothers of the

deceased had chased the accused, he had taken away the weapon and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The injured Chinnasamy was

admitted in the Namakkal Government Hospital and thereafter to Salem Government Hospital and there he died at 12 o'' clock in the night. The

said incident was spoken by P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the brothers of the accused. They have also

spoken about the incident and their presence were also proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would corroborate

the evidence of P.W.1 and there is no point shown to the Court to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Nothing has been elicited in their cross

examination also to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined the Doctor, who attended the injured

Chinnasamy at the first time in Namakkal Government Hospital as P.W.5. Her evidence would also go to show that the injured Chinnasamy was

inflicted with six injuries, which would corroborate with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Thereafter, the injured Chinnasamy was taken to Salem

Government Hospital. There, he was examined by P.W.11 Doctor, who has examined the injured Chinnasamy and her evidence would also go to

show that six injuries sustained by him. After the death of Chinnasamy, his body was subjected to autopsy and it was done by P.W.12. The

description of injuries in the evidence of P.Ws.5, 11 and 12 and the Post-mortem Certificate would go to show that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3

are very well corroborated by the medical evidence. Ex.P3 issued by P.W.5 Doctor, medial statement came into existence at 6.30 p.m.,

immediately within a period of two hours of the occurrence shows that the injured was assaulted by the known person at 4.00 p.m., on 1.6.2002,

which corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

Apart from that the accused was arrested on 3.6.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., and on his arrest, he has given a confession statement in the

presence of witnesses P.W.7 and one Kuppusamy and in the said confession, he had disclosed that he is ready to produce the Koduval, which he

has secreted near Naksuman Odai, which he has used for committing the offence and the said confession statement was marked as Ex.P10 and in

pursuance of the confession statement he has led the Investigation Officer and the witnesses to the said place where they discovered the koduval

from the said concealed place and the same was seized in the presence of witnesses namely, P.W.7 and one Kuppusamy through the Seizure

Mahazar Ex.P11. The said Koduval was identified by the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, that it was used by the accused for causing injuries over the

body of the deceased Chinnasamy. On his arrest, which led to the seizure of M.O.1 would also confirm the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore,

all the evidences adduced on the side of the prosecution would clearly prove the offence committed by the accused against the deceased

Chinnasamy.

Let us now consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the offence committed by the accused would only

amounting to culpable homicide and not amounting to murder. The argument mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that

the incident had happened only upon a sudden provocation when the deceased had interfered in the quarrel between the accused and his brothers

and therefore, it would be only an offence, which is not amounting to murder, since the accused had no intention to cause the death of the

deceased. On a careful perusal of the evidence, we could see that the dispute in between the accused and brothers was interfered and was

pacified by the deceased Chinnasamy on the fateful day. The accused immediately scolded the deceased that the dispute in between the accused

and his brothers was only due to the deceased and therefore, he did not stop with the hitting, but, went to his house, picked up the Koduval

M.O.1 and thereafter, cut the deceased all over his body. When the deceased ran away for life, he chased and inflicted cuttings on various parts of

the body of the deceased, which would go to show the intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder. The nature of injuries sustained

by the deceased and the weapon used in the occurrence would lead to the only conclusion that the deceased had committed the offence of murder

only with intention to kill the deceased. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is not a case of murder, wherein the

punishment u/s 302 IPC and at the most it is only the case of culpable homicide attracting the provisions u/s 304 (Part-I) IPC cannot be accepted.

Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.

In view of all our above discussions, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the

judgment made in S.C. No. 54 of 2003, dated 31.3.2003 is confirmed. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.