Paulsamy vs State

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The sole accused is the appellant before us, who has been proceeded against for the alleged offence on 7.12.95

at 7.00 p.m. when he is stated to have caused the death of one Shanmugam. The appellant, hereinafter, will be referred to as ''the accused''. He

was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment u/s 302 I.P.C., as against which, he has come forward with this appeal.

The brief facts relating to the occurrence was that the deceased and the accused are neighbours. They belong to the same place called

Azhagunachiyarpuram. About six months prior to the date of occurrence, the brother of the accused, one Lingasamy is stated to have eloped with

the wife of P.W.1. Pursuant to which, a panchayat was convened, in which, the wife of P.W.1 was restored to the matrimonial company of P.W.1.

On the date of occurrence, that is, on 7.12.95, at 7.00 a.m. when the mother of the accused was fetching water at the water pump near her

residence, the deceased also stated to have went there to fetch water. A quarrel ensued between the mother of the accused and the deceased.

P.W.1 is stated to have pacified the quarrel and brought back the deceased, who is his father. While so, on the same day, around 7.00 p.m., when

P.W.1, P.W.2 and one other maternal uncle of P.W.1 along with the deceased were talking in front of their house, when P.W.1 was advising the

deceased not to fight with the family of the accused, the accused appeared there along with M.O.1, aruval, and by saying that he will close the

deceased, cut the deceased. When the deceased attempted to ward off the cut, his hands were cut by the assault. The accused, thereafter, cut the

deceased on his neck, on the right flank and also at the back of the deceased. When the witnesses shouted on seeing the attack on the deceased,

the accused is stated to have ran away towards west. When the deceased was checked, he was found to be dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to

Karivalam Vanthanallur police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint, which was registered by P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 8.30 p.m.

P.W.10 registered the complaint as Crime No. 427 of 1995 u/s 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.12, F.I.R. and forwarded the same to the higher

officials.

P.W.11, who was the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information about the registration of the crime, took up investigation and visited the

place of occurrence at 10.00 p.m. and prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P.13. Thereafter, he also prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and

conducted the inquest between 11.30 and 2.00 a.m. of 7/8.12.95. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. He also examined the witnesses at the place and

recovered M.O.2, the blood-stained earth and M.O.3, the sample earth along with a white towel, M.O.4 under Ex.P.3. He arrested the accused

on 8.12.95 at 7.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 and based on the admissible portion of the statement, Ex.P.4, given by the accused, who took

the police party to a water tank at Karivalam Vanthanallur around 7.45 p.m., where near a bush, M.O.1, the aruval, was recovered along with

M.O.5, the blood stained shirt, which were recovered by P.W.11 under Ex.P.5. In between, P.W.11 sent the body of the deceased for

conducting necessary post-mortem along with a requisition.

P.W.6, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Sankarankoil, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted the

following injuries:-

A cut injury of transverse 10 cm. x 4 cm. x 6 cm. over back of neck. 1/2 cm. below the hairline tailing off on the right side. The underlying

muscles and vessels are cut. The cut passed through ''C.3'' vertebra, spinal cord and vertebral arteries are cut correspondingly, 100 gms. Blood

clots present.

A cut injury 12 cm. x 10 cm. x 6 cm. oblique, starting from the ''C.7'' vertebral level over the back of chest, running downwards and outwards

and ends in a point 2 cm. below the inferior angle of scapula. The underlying muscles and scapula are cut.

A stab wedge shaped 1/2 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. outer aspect of lower 1/3 of right upper arm.

A cut incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x 2 cm. vertical starting from the root of middle finger upto the centre of right palm.

A cut incised wound starting 6 cm. x 3 cm. x 3 cm. over lower 1/3rd of ulnar border of left forearm muscles are cut correspondingly.

The doctor issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate. He has opined in his report that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and

haemorrhage due to injury No. 1.

P.W.11, continuing with his investigation, examined the doctor on 13.12.95 and after examining the other witnesses, submitted his final report on

29.2.96.

When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied his involvement in the

murder of the deceased.

In the case on hand, by virtue of the medical evidence, Ex.P.7 and that of the oral evidence of P.W.6, the doctor who conducted the autopsy on

the body of the deceased, there can be no two opinions that the deceased died of homicidal violence.

When we come to the question of the complicity of the accused to the death of the deceased, when the evidence of P.W.1 is examined, we find

that he has narrated the whole occurrence, which took place at 7.00 p.m. on 7.12.95, in a natural manner and nothing was brought out by way of

cross-examination to dislodge the said version of P.W.1. In fact, P.W.2 also supports the version of P.W.1 without any deviation. Though it was

attempted to point out that P.W.2, at the time of incident, went inside the house to fetch a stick and therefore, he could not have witnessed the

incident, a reading of P.W.2''s evidence on the whole sufficiently demonstrate that on seeing the accused inflicting the cut injuries on the deceased,

P.W.2 wanted to save the deceased and in that view, he went inside the house to fetch a stick and by the time he could fetch the stick, the accused

ran away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, we are unable to accept the stand of the accused that P.W.2 could not have witnessed the

incident.

As regards the contention that P.W.1 himself has admitted in his evidence that the accused was present in the police station on the very date of

the incident at 11.00 p.m. and therefore, the arrest of the accused could not have been made on 8.12.95, we will have to hold that when the

evidence of P.W.1, who was the eye witness to the occurrence, was convincing and nothing was brought out insofar as that part of the evidence,

which established the involvement of the accused insofar as the infliction of the cut injuries on the deceased, merely because certain infirmities were

pointed out with regard to the arrest of the accused as to whether it was on 8.12.95 or the accused could have been detained on that day itself,

that is, on the date of occurrence, pales into insignificance. In fact, we do not want to give any importance to the arrest of the accused and the

followed recovery under Ex.P.4. When we go by the version of P.W.1 supported by P.W.2, who have witnessed the occurrence, which evidence

sufficiently established the involvement of the accused in the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, without any scope for ambiguity, by relying upon

that very evidence itself, we hold that the accused and the accused alone was responsible in regard to the injuries inflicted upon the deceased.

When we consider the evidence of P.W.6, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, we find that he has categorically

stated that the first injury caused on the deceased was sufficient enough to cause the death of the deceased and that the said injury could have been

caused by M.O.1. In such circumstances, when the evidence on record clinchingly establish the death of the deceased and the complicity of the

accused to the death of the deceased, we are unable to accept the stand of the accused that he had nothing to do with the offence.

The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 12059 of 2002 seeking permission of this Court to let in additional

evidence in order to show that the accused was a juvenile and therefore, was entitled to the protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

Section 2(e) of the said Act defines a ''delinquent Juvenile'' as a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence and Section 2(h)

defines a ''juvenile'' to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Therefore,

if the accused wants to invoke the benefits conferred under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, he should satisfy that he was a

''delinquent juvenile'' and a ''juvenile'' as defined under the aforesaid Act. When admittedly the accused was 19 years old and even as per the birth

certificate produced by him, his date of birth was 9.8.76, the accused was far beyond 16 years on the date of occurrence, that is, on 7.12.95.

Moreover, throughout the proceedings before the trial Court, the accused never questioned his age or took up the stand that he could be treated

as a juvenile and tried as such; on the contrary, when he was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he has admitted his age to be of 22 years. Therefore, we

do not find any scope for invoking the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

Under the above circumstances, we do not find any scope for interfering with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. The appeal

is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 12059 of 2002 is also dismissed.