PanchaIingam @ Chinnathambi vs State

M. Chockalingam, J.—The sole accused, in a case of murder, on being found guilty and awarded life imprisonment by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, is challenging the said judgment in this appeal.

The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal could be stated thus:

(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Udumalpet. She has got two daughters. The second daughters. The second daughter was given in marriage to the accused. They were also living nearby. On 24.11.93, at about 4 p.m. P.W.1 was informed that the accused was beating his wife. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of her daughter where she witnessed the accused beating her daughter with a firewood. On account of the assault, her daughter, the deceased, fell down unconscious. The occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.2, the sister-in-law of the accused. Thereafter, the deceased was taken in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet by P.Ws.1, 2 and the accused. P.W.8 is the doctor on duty in the Government Hospital, Udumalpet. He examined Chitra, the deceased at about 5.50 p.m. and declared her dead. Ex.P8 is a copy of the Accident Register issued by him.

(b) P.W.1 proceeded to Udumalpet Police Station and gave an oral complaint, which was reduced into writing by P.W.10, the Head Constable, who was on, duty. The said complaint is Ex.P1. On the basis of Ex-P1, a case was registered in Crime No.640/94 for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and Ex-P9 is a copy of the printed First Information Report, which was dispatched to Court and higher officials.

(c) On receipt of a copy of the First Information Report, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses. He prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P2 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex-P10. Photographs of the scene of occurrence were taken through P.W.6, photographer. M.O.2 series are the photographs. In the presence of panchayatars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report, Ex.P-11. After inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital along with a requisition, Ex.-P5, through P.W.9, police constable, for the purpose of autopsy.

(d) P.W.7, the Civil Surgeon, attached to Government Hospital, Udumalpet, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chitra and found the following injuries:

Fracture right thumb DIPJ.

6 transverse abrasions in right arm near shoulder dorsal aspect.

Irregular abrasions 2 x 1/2 over left forearm near elbow dorsal side.

Right arm wholly contused.

Left arm with shoulder wholly contused with irregular transverse abrasions over dorsal aspect.

Contusion back of thigh right and left) abrasions left inguinal region irregular shape 1x1/2.

Irregular abrasion lateral side or left knee and leg 2 x 1/2.

Lacerated wound lower 3" of right leg longitudinal 2 x 1 x 1/2.

Laceration 2 x 1/2 x bone deep over vertex in midline.

Contusion over dorsum 20 x 10 contusion over chest 2 x 1 near sternum upper end.

Ex.-P6 is the post-mortem certificate and on receipt of the: Chemical Examiner''s Report, the doctor gave his final opinion as the cause of death that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the cumulative effect of injuries sustained. Ex.-P7 is the final opinion.

(e) P.W.11, continuing with his investigation, examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. He examined P.W.8 the doctor, who treated her and recorded his statement. On 28.11.94 he arrested the accused and when questioned, the accused gave confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P3,. Pursuant to the confession statement, the accused produced M.O.1 firewood and it was recovered under Ex.P4. The material objects were sent to Court to subject them for chemical analysis. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report in Court against the accused in Court on 13.8.1995.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed against the accused. To substantiate the charges framed, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 11 exhibits and 5 material objects. On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied them as false. No witnesses were examined on his side. After hearing both sides and on scrutiny of the materials available on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and awarded life imprisonment, which conviction and sentence is being assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, this prosecution examined two witnesses as eye witnesses to the occurrence and of them, P.W.2 turned hostile and the prosecution was left-with the evidence of P.W.1, who is none else than the mother of this deceased. According to the learned counsel, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that she has come forward with a false case and she, being an interested witness, her evidence ought to have been rejected, but the Lower Court, on the other hand, has accepted the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel also pointed out that the accused, alongwith P.Ws.1 and 2, accompanied injured Chitra to the hospital and if the accused had actually assaulted the deceased, he would not have taken her to the hospital and the Lower Court has failed to take into account this particular circumstance. Further, according to the learned counsel, assuming that it was the accused, who beat the deceased with a firewood at the time of occurrence, even then, his act would not fall within the ambit of murder, as the post-mortem certificate reveals that all the injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body and this would indicate that it was not the intention of the accused to cause the death of his wife. Therefore, the act of the accused would only attract one of the exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. and this aspect has to be considered by this Court. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the above contentions.

The Court paid its full attention to the submissions made on either side and made a thorough scrutiny of the materials available on record. The fact that Chitra, the deceased, died of homicidal violence stands established through the evidence of P.W.8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy and Ex-P6, the post-mortem certificate. The said fact is also not disputed by the accused either before this Court or before the Lower Court. Hence, it can be safely held that Chitra, the deceased in this case, died of homicidal violence.

The prosecution, in support of their case, examined two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, as eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is true that one of the witnesses, namely, P.W.2, the sister-in-law of the accused turned hostile. Though P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, no circumstance, whatsoever, is brought to the notice of this Court that P.W.1, and the accused were on inimical terms or that strained relationship prevailed between the two for P.W.1 to falsely implicate the accused. In the absence of any such material, the Court has to necessarily accept her evidence and the Lower Court has rightly done so. The medical evidence, namely, the evidence of P.W.8 and Ex-P6, the post-mortem certificate, stand as a good piece of corroboration to the ocular testimony of P.W.1, in that, the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by a firewood and therefore, without any impediment, it can be safely held that it was the accused, who attacked the deceased with a firewood and caused her death.

Now, coming to the question of the offence committed by the accused/appellant, the Court has to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant attacked the deceased with a firewood. However, there is no material on record to show that strained relationship prevailed between the accused and the deceased during the relevant time or a quarrel preceded the occurrence. Hence, the act of the accused was not a premeditated or a deliberate or a wanton one. Moreover, all the injuries suffered by the deceased were on the non-vital parts and therefore, it was not the intention of the accused to cause her death. But, at the same time, the accused would have known fully well that by his act, death was likely to occur. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the act of the accused would not come within the definition of murder but, can be termed only as culpable homicide amounting to murder. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Lower Court are set aside and instead, he is convicted u/s 304(II) I.P.C. for which he stands sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.