Ranjith Kumar vs State

M. Chockalingam, J.—This appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Virudhunagar at Srivilluputhur, made in S.C. No. 198 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 364 and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and default sentence u/s 364 IPC and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and default sentence u/s 302 IPC.

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

(a) P.W.1 Manju Bhargavi, is the daughter and P.W.4 is the son of the deceased Ayyanar. P.W.3 is the elder brother of the deceased. The accused also belonged to the same community. P.W.10 is the sister-in-law of the accused/appellant. They were all residents of Pillaiyarnatham, a village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. The deceased in view of the strained relationship with his wife, was living separately for the past six years. Equally P.W.10 the sister-in-law of the accused/appellant, due to the strained relationship with her husband, was staying at Pillaiyarnatham and working as a Teacher in a School. The accused/appellant desired to marry P.W.10 as the second wife. When he found the deceased and P.W.10 moving with each other, he entertained a suspicion over their conduct. Then, he informed the same to P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, who in turn informed the deceased. The deceased replied that it was simply a social movement and not with any idea.

(b) On the date of occurrence that was 15.8.2008, at about 7.30 P.M., the deceased was in his house when P.W.1, daughter, was reading, and P.W.4 went outside. At that time, the accused came and called the deceased outside. But, the deceased refused to come out. Immediately, the accused got inside and dragged the deceased from inside the house. The same was witnessed by P.W.1. Being frightened by the same, she came outside and was standing near the step door. Then she found the accused/appellant taking the deceased on the eastern side. Short a while thereafter, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and enquired P.W.1 about the same. P.W.1 informed that the accused came there and took her father on the eastern side. Then P.W.3 took a torchlight, and both of them proceeded towards eastern side, and they heard the distressing cry of the deceased at about 8.00 P.M. They also found the accused/appellant attacking him with an aruval indiscriminately. On seeing them, the accused/appellant fled away from the place of occurrence.

(c) P.Ws.3 and 4 came to the village and informed to P.W.1 and others. Then P.W.1 was taken to the respondent police station where she gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No. 689 of 2008 u/s 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P22, was despatched to the Court.

(d) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P8, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P24. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body at the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P25, the inquest report. He recovered sample earth, bloodstained earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.

(e) Pursuant to the requisition given by the Investigating Officer, P.W.11, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ayyanar and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P13, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury of major vessels in

neck, cut injury of C3-4 spine, and cut injury of spinal cord and fracture in the skull, and death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.

(f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily in the presence of witnesses. The same was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P10. Following the same, he produced M.O.3, aruval, the weapon of crime, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then he was sent for judicial remand.

(g) All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P19, the chemical analyst''s report, and Ex.P20, the serologist''s report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 18 witnesses and also relied on 26 exhibits and 10 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. But two documents were marked on his side. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the appellant guilty on both the charges and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.

Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr. N. Mohideen Basha would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that the prosecution came with a motive specifically stating that the accused/appellant had developed a grudge in his mind, and he wanted to marry P.W.10, his sister-in-law, as second wife, and the deceased was also moving with her which impelled him to do the act; that P.W.10 was also examined in Court; that according to her, she did not know prior to the occurrence that either the accused/appellant or the deceased had got any desire to marry her; that apart from that, this motive part is not spoken to by any other witness ,and thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive; that though the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 as eyewitnesses, P.W.4 has categorically stated that P.W.3 came to know only from others, and thus P.W.3 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all; that as far as P.W.4 was concerned, he could not have seen the occurrence; that according to him, when he went to the scene of occurrence, he saw the occurrence; but, according to P.W.1, the accused came to the house of the deceased and took him all along the way on the eastern side which was situate away in a public place; that if to be so, all the neighbours would have witnessed; that if really he was taken forcibly, somebody would have intervened, but no independent witness was examined; that the occurrence has taken place at about 8.00 P.M., and there was an interval of half an hour; that under the circumstances, P.W.4 could not have seen such an occurrence that took place; that even assuming that P.W.4 has actually seen the occurrence, being the son he would not have been looking at such a heinous blow inflicted over his father, and thus it would clearly indicate that P.W.4 could not have seen the occurrence at all; and that P.W.3 has claimed that he took a torchlight; but, the torchlight was not recovered.

Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution much relied on the recovery of weapon of crime; that according to P.W.1, the accused was very well available at the place of occurrence at about 9.00 P.M., and hence the claim of the Investigator that the weapon of crime was recovered subsequently in the presence of P.W.7 could not be true.

The learned Counsel would further add that Ex.P1 document could not have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution; that according to the prosecution, P.W.1 was taken to the police station, and it was she who gave the complaint; that she was a child of 15 years old; that while other persons were available, there was no need for P.W.1 to give the complaint; that apart from that, while P.W.3, the elderly person, was available, then there was no need for giving the report, Ex.P1, through P.W.1; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 8.00 P.M.; but the case was actually registered at about 11.00 P.M.; that P.W.1 would claim that the police officials were very well present at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence was over; that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 5 kilometres; that even there is no clear narration of the entire incident; that these are all only fabricated documents; there was an information given for getting the services of the sniffer dog squad even before the registration of the case; that the available evidence would clearly indicate that the family members of P.W.10 had got a grudge, and some of them came to the place and had quarrel with the deceased, and he should have been murdered by somebody else and not the appellant as put forth by the prosecution.

Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either the motive or the occurrence part; that the other evidence put forth by the prosecution were thoroughly unreliable and unacceptable; that despite the same, the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted.

The learned Counsel in the second line of argument, would submit that he has actually got a sustained provocation; that he had an idea of marrying P.W.10, the sister-in-law, as second wife; that while so, he found the deceased moving with her closely, and this conduct was actually suspected by him; that apart from that, according to P.W.1, he was taken from the house at about 7.30 P.M., and the occurrence has taken place at about 8.00 P.M.; that there was an interval of half an hour, and thus it could be inferable that there should have been some quarrel between the accused/appellant and the deceased at the place of occurrence; that all would clearly indicate that it was not an intentional one, but was due to the quarrel and sustained provocation, and this aspect has got to be considered by the Court.

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

It is not in controversy that the father of P.Ws.1 and 4 was done to death in an incident that had taken place at about 8.00 P.M. on 15.8.2008, at the place of occurrence. Following the registration of the case by P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, the investigation was taken up by P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, who after the preparation of the inquest report in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, sent the dead body for the purpose of postmortem. P.W.11, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, has deposed before the Court as a witness that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injuries sustained by him. The fact that Ayyanar died out of homicidal violence was not a subject matter of controversy before the trial Court, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.

In order to prove both the charges levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 as eyewitnesses. Before making a discussion over the evidence of the eyewitnesses, it would be apt and appropriate to highlight the motive. The accused/appellant and also the deceased belonged to the same place called Pillaiyarnatham. They also belonged to the same community. The accused/appellant was not living with his wife during the relevant time. P.W.10, the sister-in-law of the appellant, was not living with her husband during the relevant time, and she was working as a Teacher in a School at Pillaiyarnatham. Thus the accused/appellant had a desire to marry her as second wife. The deceased was also not living with his wife, but living with the children P.Ws.1 and 4, during the relevant time. From the evidence available, it would be quite clear that the deceased was moving with P.W.10 closely, and under the circumstances, the accused/appellant entertained a suspicion over the same and thought that it would be a hurdle in order to execute his desire. This motive part is clearly spoken to in general by the other witnesses and in particular by P.W.4, the son of the deceased, and thus the contention of the appellant''s side that the motive was not proved cannot be countenanced.

The prosecution relied on the next part of the evidence which is the last seen theory as spoken to by P.W.1. P.W.1 is a girl of 15 years doing her education in a school. She has categorically deposed to the effect that on the date of occurrence i.e., 15.8.2008, she was reading books in her house at about 7.30 P.M., that her father was also available; that at that time, the accused/appellant came there and called him in Telugu language to come out; that her father refused to go; that immediately, the accused/appellant got inside and dragged him from inside the house; that on seeing this, she came out due to fear and was standing outside and looking at them; and that at that time, the accused/appellant took him on the eastern direction. It is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place within a short span of half an hour, and thus the fact that it was the accused/appellant who took him from the house was clearly spoken to by P.W.1 following which the incident of murder has taken place. Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 assumes much importance in the case on hand.

Apart from the above, there are two other witnesses examined for the purpose of speaking about the occurrence namely P.Ws.3 and 4. According to P.W.3, he accompanied by P.W.4, the son of the deceased, came to the house and asked P.W.1 about the deceased, and it was replied by P.W.1 that he was taken by the accused/appellant on the eastern side, and immediately, P.W.4 took a torchlight, and both went over there, and they found at the place of occurrence, the accused/appellant was cutting him with an aruval. Now, at this juncture, the comment put forth by the learned Counsel that the torchlight was not recovered, and P.W.4 in his evidence would say that P.W.3 has come later would not assume importance because P.W.1 has categorically stated that both of them came, enquired and went from the place towards eastern side. P.Ws.3 and 4 have spoken in one voice that they proceeded from the house towards eastern side, and they found at the place of occurrence, the accused attacking him with the aruval. At this juncture, the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4 stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed through the postmortem Doctor and the postmortem certificate produced before the trial Court.

The learned Counsel would make a comment that the aruval had a length of 3/4 meter, and it could not have been hidden by him on his back. Where the aruval was hidden is within the knowledge of the accused/appellant, and thus, no one could speak about the same. Where he hid the aruval is not material. But at the time of occurrence, he attacked the deceased with the aruval, and two witnesses have spoken before the Court.

It is pertinent to point out that the deceased was taken from the house at 7.30 P.M. on the eastern direction, and P.Ws.3 and 4 have immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence at 7.45 P.M. itself, and the occurrence has taken place at 8.00 P.M. Immediately, thereafter, they proceeded to the police station and gave the complaint under Ex.P1. A comment was made by the learned Counsel pointing to the evidence of P.W.1 that the police personnel have come to the place of occurrence at about 9.00 P.M. Even assuming that the police personnel on information, came to the place of occurrence, that cannot be said to be the first information because P.W.1 has admitted that even after the police personnel came there, all of them went to the police station where Ex.P1 was given. Mere presence of the police personnel at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, cannot be taken that there was a first information given in respect of a cognizable offence upon which the police should act. In the case on hand, Ex.P1 is the report, and it leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that P.W.1 was the author of it, and the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.16, has registered the case.

It is contended by the appellant''s side that when elderly persons were available, there was no need for P.W.1 to lodge a complaint. It is true that the complaint has been given by P.W.1 and not by P.W.3 or P.W.4. As could be seen from the evidence, when P.W.1 was available, the accused/appellant has come and taken the deceased, and therefore, they would have thought it fit to give complaint through P.W.1 since at the time of origin of the offence, she was the only person available. Under the circumstances, that contention cannot also be accepted.

As regards the contention that an information was given for getting the services of the sniffer dog squad even before the registration of the case, Admittedly, the police personnel came to the place of occurrence immediately at about 9.00 P.M., and P.W.1 would say that thereafter, they went to the police station and Ex.P1 has come into existence. Under the circumstances, a message would have been given to the sniffer dog squad, and that by itself cannot be a reason to cast any doubt on the prosecution case.

For the foregoing reasons, all the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever. From the evidence available, it would be quite clear that in view of the motive, the accused/appellant who entertained suspicion over the conduct of the deceased that he moved with P.W.10, came to his house, dragged him, took him on the eastern side, attacked him with the aruval and caused his death instantaneously.

As regards the second line of argument put forth, this Court is unable to countenance the same for the simple reason that it is not a case where there was anything provocative or a quarrel, much less sudden quarrel. Apart from that, nothing could be inferred in the absence of any material either regarding the quarrel or any provocation. Under the circumstances, the second line of argument cannot have any basis at all, and thus it is without merit. The trial Judge was perfectly correct in finding the appellant guilty under Sections 364 and 302 of IPC, and the punishments awarded are found to be reasonable. Both the sentences are to run concurrently as made in the judgment of the trial Court.

In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.