Seenivasan vs State

M. Chockalingam, JJ.—Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Division (Fast Track Court No. I), Tiruchirappalli made in S.C. No. 32 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty u/s 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.

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

(i) The deceased Rangaraj and the accused were residents of Dhandalai Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. On the day prior to the occurrence that was on 05.09.2006, in the night hours, the accused was proceeding in a vacant site of the deceased and the same was questioned by the deceased, pursuant to which, there was a quarrel in the next morning at 04.00 clock. PW2, the junior maternal aunt of the deceased, and also PW3, a neighbour, on hearing the distressing cry of the deceased, came out of the house and found the accused running from the place of occurrence with aruval (MO1). The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1, was not in his office in the early hours and he was informed by his Assistant about the incident. Immediately, PW1 went to the spot, verified the same, proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, PW7.

ii) On the strength of the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.7, registered a case in Cr. No. 369 of 2006 u/s 302 of IPC. Printed FIR Ex.P8 along with Ex.P1, the complaint, was despatched to the Court concerned and to the higher officials.

iii) On receipt of copy of the FIR, P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.4, and a rough sketch Ex.P.9. Besides that he recovered material Objects MO2 and MO3 Blood stained earth and sample earth respectively, in the presence of the witnesses. Further, he enquired some witnesses and recorded their statements. The investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, which was marked as Ex.P.10.

iv) Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, for the purpose of autopsy. On receipt of the requisition made by the investigator, P.W.6, the Doctor, attached to Musiri Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, and has given his opinion that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury to head.

v) Pending investigation, PW8, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and he gave a confessional statement voluntarily in the presence of witnesses, and the admissible part of the confession was marked as Ex.P.2. Following the same, he produced MO.1 Aruval, the weapon of crime which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand.

vi) 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.

vii) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and relied on 10 exhibits and 5 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. On the side of the defence, neither witness was examined nor document was marked.

viii) After hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the material available meticulously, 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 arguments on behalf of the appellant the learned Counsel, Mr. D. Malaichamy, would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution relied on two pieces of evidence namely the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as eyewitnesses and also the recovery of the weapon of crime on the confession of the accused. The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. So far as PW2 was concerned, she was actually staying along with the deceased and on the date of occurrence, according to PW2, when she came out of the house after hearing the distressing cry of the deceased and at that time she found the accused moving from the place of occurrence with aruval. Equally, the same is spoken to by PW3, a neighbour. But the investigator has categorically admitted that they have not given such a statement at the time when the statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the appellant further added that the inaction on the part of PW2, and also the mother of the deceased, would clearly indicate that such an occurrence could not have taken place at all. He added that the prosecution has not examined, Mr. Karupaya, the village menial who informed PW1, the village administrative Officer. In so far as the motive part is concerned, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night. Following the same, the occurrence has taken place. The entire motive part was actually a flimsy one which would not have been led to such a heinous crime. The learned Counsel added further that though the investigator claimed that the aruval, the weapon of crime, was recovered following the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the accused to the investigator in the presence of the witnesses, the weapon of crime was not sent for chemical analysis and no explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution for the same and thus, all the above would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled 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 Rangaraj was done to death in an incident that took place at about 4.00 a.m. on 06.09.2006. On the complaint given by PW1, the Village Administrative Officer, a case in crime No. 369 of 2006 was resisted by PW7, the sub Inspector of Police, for murder. PW8, the Investigating Officer took up investigation and following the inquest made by him, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem by PW6, the doctor, who has given a categorical opinion that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury to head. The cause of death putforth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. The trial Court has recorded so and rightly too. In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked the deceased with aruval and caused his death instantaneously, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. PW2 is actually the junior maternal aunt of the deceased, and PW3 is the neighbour of the deceased. Both the witnesses have spoken in one voice that on hearing the distressing cry of the deceased from outside, both of them came out of their house and they were able to see in the public light that the accused was moving from the place of occurrence with aruval within a short distance. The accused also belonged to the same place, he was familiar to both of them. Both PW2 and PW3 have actually witnessed the deceased falling down with the injuries sustained by him and the accused armed with a deadly weapon namely aruval and moving from the place of occurrence within a short distance.

The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court some discrepancies that were made between the statements made by the witnesses to the investigating officer and the evidence before the Court. But the substance of the evidence of these witnesses was to the effect that the deceased fell down with injuries sustained by him and the accused was moving with the aruval from the place of occurrence, within a short distance and it is very clear from their evidence. In so far as this part is concerned, there is no discrepancy noticed by the Court. Added circumstance to this evidence of PW2 and PW3 was the recovery of weapon of crime MO1 from the accused following the confessional statement given by him and recorded by the Investigating officer. A witness has been examined to that effect and the same has been proved. Thus, the recovery of the weapon of crime from the accused following his confessional statement would be indicative of the nexus of the accused with the crime and this part of the evidence coupled with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 would make it clear that it was the accused who has committed the crime. The investigator if really wanted to project the case through PW2 and PW3, he would have further developed the case as if they have seen the accused attacking the deceased, but that is not their evidence. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs2 and 3 would clearly indicate that they were natural evidence. According to them, on hearing the distressing cry, they came out and witnessed the deceased falling down with injuries and the accused moving with the weapon of crime within a short distance. The comment made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that PW2, the junior maternal aunt of the deceased, and PW3, the neighbour, or the mother of the deceased have not given any complaint, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason they were womenfolk and the occurrence has taken place at 04.00 a.m. and they raised the cry and all neighbours of the village gathered. That cannot be a reason for suspect the truth of the prosecution case. It is true that the weapon of crime, was not actually subjected to chemical analysis. It was actually an irregularity committed. But, the evidence is available for the prosecution to indicate that it was the accused who has committed the offence and none else. Therefore, the irregularity by itself would not suffice to doubt the prosecution case. Thus, all the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever and the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused in the considered opinion of the Court. The trial court was perfectly correct in finding him guilty for the charge of murder and awarding life imprisonment along with fine. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court either factually or legally. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be affirmed and accordingly, it is affirmed.

In the result, this Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.