Ramesh vs State by Inspector of Police

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Division, Thanjavur made in S.C. No. 65 of 2008, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 341 IPC and he was awarded life imprisonment with fine and default sentence.

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

(i) P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the brothers of the deceased Sasikumar. P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased and P.W.4 is a neighbour. In the year 1996, the father of the appellant/accused got Rs. 1,500/- from the father of P.W.1 stating that he would work for the same. Neither he came to do work nor returned the said amount. There was a quarrel often on that count. When there was a continuous demand, the accused/appellant executed a bond for assurance of making the repayment. The said Sasikumar, left for Madras for search of a job and returned in the year 2003. On 08.09.2003, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the deceased were carrying on agricultural operations in their field. At about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding towards his house from the field, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were following him. When they were just crossing the sugarcane field, P.Ws.1 to 3 heard the distressing cry of the deceased. Immediately, they rushed the spot, where they witnessed the accused/appellant attacking the deceased indiscriminately with an aruval. On seeing them, the accused/appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 3 immediately took the deceased to a Private Clinic, where P.W.5 gave initial treatment. Ex.P2 is a copy of the accident register. Despite the treatment, the deceased died at about 8.15 p.m. Intimation was given to the respondent police station. P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, Orathanadu, on receipt of the intimation proceeded to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where he met P.W.1 and recorded his statement and on the strength of Ex.P1, a case was registered in Cr. No. 419 of 2003 under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC. The first information Report Ex.P.10 was despatched to the Court concerned.

(ii) Ex.P.14, the Inspector of Police took up investigation, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P5 and also a sketch and conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P14.

(iii) On requisition, P.W.6, the doctor, attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased and gave his opinion that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and also due to the injuries sustained by him. She gave a post mortem certificate Ex.P4.

(iv) Pending the investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused on 15.09.2003. The accused came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded by the investigator in the presence of witnesses. The admissible portion of the confessional statement is Ex.P15, pursuant to which, he produced M.O.1 aruval which was recovered under a cover of Ex.P7 mahazar. Then, he was sent for judicial remand and all the material objects recovered from the dead body including MO1 were subjected to chemical analysis by the forensic department. Ex.P11 is the Chemical Analyst''s Report and Ex.P12 is the Serologist''s Report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits and 2 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as false. No defence witnesses were examined.

After hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the materials available, the trial court, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at the instance of the accused/appellant.

Advancing the arguments, on behalf of the appellant, learned Counsel Mr. S. Kasirajan, would submit that in the instant case, prosecution marched four witnesses as eyewitness, out of whom, P.W.4 has turned hostile. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased, and P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased, and they were all not only close relatives to the deceased, but also interested parties of the deceased.

Added further, the learned Counsel that the occurrence has taken place in the sugarcane field and even as per the admission made by witnesses, the sugarcane was risen upto 15 feet height and no one could have witnessed the occurrence. When P.Ws.1 to 3 heard the distressing cry, they just ran to the place of the occurrence and hence, they could not have seen the occurrence at all. Though P.W.4 was a hostile witness to prosecution, he has given evidence in support of the defence. According to P.W.4, when he came to the field, he did not see anybody, but only the injured. Under the circumstances, it is clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have seen the occurrence at all. Added further, the ocular testimony projected through P.Ws.1 to 3 was not supported by the medical opinion canvassed. Added further, the arrest, the alleged confession, and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 were nothing but a cooked up story in order to strengthen the prosecution case. Under the circumstances, it could be well stated that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. But the trial Court has erroneously taken the view and therefore, it is a fit case for acquittal in the hands of this Court.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also scrutinized the materials available.

It is not in controversy that one Sasikumar, brother of P.Ws.1 and 2 following an incident that has taken place on 08.09.2003 was taken to a private hospital, where P.W.5, who has given initial treatment, and despite the treatment, he had died at 8.15 p.m. on the same day. On the registration of the complaint, Ex.P.1, given by P.W.1, the case was taken up for investigation by the Inspector of Police. Then he made inquest over the dead body and prepared an inquest report which is marked as Ex.P.14. Following the same, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.6, the doctor, who has categorically opined in her postmortem certificate that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. Apart from this, the appellant/accused never questioned the fact that the said Sasikumar died out of homicidal violence at any stage of proceedings. Hence, without any impediment whatsoever, it could be safely recorded so.

In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution marched three eye witnesses. It is true to say that P.Ws.1 and 3 are close relatives of the deceased. But, at the same time, it is well settled proposition of law that the evidence though offered by the relative witnesses, it cannot be rejected, but before acceptance, the Court must apply test of careful scrutiny. In the instant case, PWs.1 to 3 have spoken in one voice that they were all working in the field along with the deceased at the time of harvest and the deceased was going in front towards his home and PWs.1 to 3 were also following the deceased. When they were crossing the sugarcane field, they heard distressing cry. Immediately, they rushed to the spot, where they found the accused/appellant attacking the deceased indiscriminately. Despite the cross-examination in full, the evidence of these witnesses remained unshaken. Apart from that, the ocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed though P.W.6, the doctor and the contents of the post-mortem certificate.

Yet another circumstance against the accused is the recovery of M.O.1 Aruval, the weapon of crime, following the confessional statement given by the accused/appellant. Witnesses have been examined to that effect through whom the said M.O.1 recovery has been proved. This would go to show that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused with abundant evidence.

Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance for the reason that the evidence are available in a chronological manner. The occurrence has taken place at 5.45 p.m., and immediately he was taken to a Private Hospital, and despite, treatment given by P.W.5, he died. The case was registered within a short span of time and the First Information Report also reached the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a reasonable time. All would clearly pointing the truth of the prosecution case.

Now, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that even though there are so many workers working in the field more than 20 in number, admittedly no one was examined, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that at the time when occurrence has taken place, the deceased was going in front towards his house and P.Ws.1 to 3 were following the deceased and at that juncture, the occurrence has taken place in the sugarcane field and not in the field where they were all carrying agricultural operations. Apart from that, it is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place in the sugarcane field, where the accused/appellant came with an aruval and attacked the deceased, who remained unarm, and hence, it would be indicative of the intention of the accused to cause the crime and sufficient motive was also available to the act so done by him, which has also been proved by sufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording the finding that the act of the accused would attract the penal provision of murder and awarding life imprisonment, which does not require any disturbance at the hands of this Court either legally or faculty. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed affirming the judgment of the trial Court.