S. Manikanda Prabhu vs State

A. Selvam, J.—1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2014 by the Fifth Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused is one of the sons of the deceased Dhanalakshmi and de facto complainant is the father of the accused. The accused has very often used to extract money from his mother for consuming liquor and on 28.11.2013 the accused has done the same thing. On 30.11.2013 at about 12.00 Noon, the accused has demanded money from the deceased and since she refused to give money a wrangle has happened between them. On 01.12.2013 at about 02.00 a.m. while the deceased has slept along with the de facto complainant, the accused with intention to murder the deceased has attacked her by using a knife and due to his overt acts she passed away. After occurrence, the de facto complainant has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No. 979 of 2013.

On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer viz., P.W.15 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly the doctor by name Natarajan (P.W.12) has conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he found the following external and internal injuries:

"1. Transversely oblique cut injury measuring 18cm x 2 cm x 1.5cm muscle deep noted on front of middle of right side of neck, 6cm below right side mastoid.

On dissection:

The wound found cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves.

Transversely oblique cut injury measuring 6cm x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on dorsum of left hand. Other Findings:

Peritoneal cavity - empty; Pleural cavities - empty; Pericardium - contains 15ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - both chambers are empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs - cut section pale; Larynx & trachea - normal; Hyoid bone - intact; Stomach - contains 150 gms of partially digested food particles, nil specific smell, mucosa - pale; Liver, Spleen & Kidneys - cut section pale; Small intestine - contains 20ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa - pale; Bladder - empty; Uterus - normal, cut section empty; Brain - surface vessels and cut section pale".

The Postmortem Certificate has been marked as Ex. P.10. After transfer of P.W.15, his successor in office viz., P.W.17 has continued investigation, examined some connected witnesses and laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. VI, Madurai and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C. No. 20 of 2014.

The Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai after considering the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Madurai Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2014 and subsequently made over to the Trial Court.

The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 have been examined and Ex. P.1 to P.15 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 have been marked.

When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.

The Trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon pondering the evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant.

The consistent case putforth on the side of the prosecution is that both the de facto complainant and deceased are the parents of the accused. The accused has used to demand money from the deceased for consuming liquor. On 28.11.2013, he has done the same thing and the deceased has refused to give money. On 30.11.2013 at about 12.00 Noon, the accused has repeated the same thing and since the deceased has refused to give money, a wrangle has happened between them. On 01.12.2013, at about 02.00 a.m. in the house of the de facto complainant while the deceased has slept along with the de facto complainant the accused has attacked the deceased by using a knife and due to his overt acts she passed away.

The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of the complaint alleged to have been given by the de facto complainant and the same has been marked as Ex. P.1. The author of Ex. P.1 has been examined as P.W.1. One Saravanakumar who is none other than the other son of P.W.1 has been examined as P.W.2. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.12. The concerned Village Administrative Officer to whom the accused is said to have given an extra-judicial confession has been examined as P.W.6 and he marked Ex. P.4, extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused. The Trial Court after considering the overall evidence available on record has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence as mentioned in the Judgment.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points so as to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant/accused:

"(i) As per evidence given by P.W.5 during the course of cross-examination, the Court can easily deduce that the appellant/accused is a mentally retard person and therefore he is entitled to benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the Trial Court has failed to consider the same.

(ii) In Ex. P.1, complaint it has been specifically stated that the occurrence has taken place at 02.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the de facto complainant, it is mentioned a different time and therefore Ex. P.1 is nothing, but a concocted document.

(iii) As per evidence given by Scientific Assistant viz., P.W.11, the Court can easily discern that the blood group found in M.O.4 is not tallied with the blood group of other material objects and therefore the appellant/accused has been falsely roped in the present case.

(iv) The specific evidence given by P.W.1 is that after occurrence the appellant/accused has scampered from the place of occurrence with a knife whereas the specific evidence given by the concerned Village Administrative Officer is that as per extra-judicial confession given by the accused a knife has been recovered from the loft of the house of the de facto complainant and the Trial Court has failed to look into the same."

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also equally contended that the father of the accused has been examined as P.W.1 and he narrated the entire episodes, details of occurrence and also manner of attacks alleged to have been made by the accused on the person of the deceased and the evidence given by P.W.1 has been clearly corroborated by medical evidence by way of examining P.W.12 and also by way of marking Ex. P.10 and the Trial Court after considering the voluminous evidence available on record has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused do not warrant interference.

It is an admitted fact that both the de facto complainant and deceased are the parents of the accused. It is also equally an admitted fact that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the de facto complainant. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused has used to demand money very often from the deceased for consuming liquor and since the deceased has firmly refused to part with the money, the accused has murdered her.

As pointed out earlier, the prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex. P.1, the complaint, wherein it has been explicitly stated to the effect that the accused has used to demand money from the deceased very often for consuming liquor and since the deceased has refused to part with the money, the accused has murdered the deceased.

The author of Ex. P.1 has been examined as P.W.1. As stated in many places, P.W.1 is none other than the father of the accused. Since P.W.1 is none other than the father of the accused, more credence could be given to his evidence. The specific evidence given by P.W.1 is that in the place of occurrence the accused has attacked the deceased by using a knife and after occurrence he scooted from the place of occurrence by using rear door. Since P.W.1 has given such kind of specific evidence, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that in the place of occurrence the accused has attacked the deceased by using a knife.

The doctor who conducted autopsy viz., P.W.12 has also opined that the death would have occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased and to that effect he has filed Ex. P.10, Postmortem Certificate.

From the conjoint reading of the evidence given by the witnesses mentioned supra and also from the close relationship that exists between the accused and de facto complainant, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that the accused has murdered the deceased.

The first and foremost limb of argument advanced on the side of the appellant/accused is that even prior to occurrence the accused has suffered from mental illness and only during insanity he committed the crime. It is true that P.W.5 during the course of cross-examination admitted to the effect that the deceased (mother of the accused) has reported her that the accused has suffered from mental illness and due to that he has been treated and that itself is not sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the accused has suffered from mental illness on the date of occurrence.

If really the accused is an insane person even prior to occurrence or at the time of occurrence, the accused can very well invoke Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But no attempt has been made on the side of the accused. Under the said circumstances, the first and foremost contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is nothing, but brain wave of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the same cannot be believed in.

The second limb of argument advanced on the side of the appellant/accused is that in Ex. P.1 it has been clearly stated to the effect that the occurrence has taken place at 02.00 a.m. whereas in the statement given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, different time has been mentioned.

On the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused, this Court has meticulously perused Ex. P.14 wherein it has been clinchingly stated to the effect that after seeing Television, both the accused and P.W.1 have gone to bed at 11.00 p.m. Except the said aspect, no mention has been made with regard to alleged variation of time of occurrence. Therefore the second limb of argument advanced on the side of the appellant/accused goes out without merit.

The third limb of argument advanced on the side of the appellant/accused is that the blood group found from M.O.4 knife is totally varied from blood group found from other material objects. It is seen from the records that no blood group has been found out from M.O.4. Under the said circumstances the third contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be accepted.

The fourth contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the specific evidence given by P.W.1 is that after occurrence the accused has scooted from the place of occurrence with a knife by using rear door whereas the concerned Village Administrative Officer viz., P.W.6 has given evidence to the effect that as per extra-judicial confession given by the accused, a knife has been recovered from the loft of the house of P.W.1 and that itself would be sufficient to militate the case of the prosecution.

It is true that some variation is found place with regard to recovery of M.O.4 and that itself would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the case of the prosecution is false.

It has already been pointed out that P.W.1 is none other than the father of the accused and he has given specific evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence the accused has attacked the deceased by using a knife. Since P.W.1 has given an unimpugnable evidence for the purpose of proving the alleged culpability of the accused, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the accused has committed the crime.

The Trial Court after considering the plenitude of evidence available on record has rightly found the appellant/accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal premise, this Court has not found any illegality nor infirmity in the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and altogether the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2014 by the Fifth Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai are confirmed.