SUBRAMANIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal was charged for offences punishable under sections 302 and 376 for having committed the rape and murder of one vaishnavi on 15th January, 1996. The learned sessions judge, south Arcot vallalar division, Cuddalore, after trial found the accused guilty of offence charged against him and convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He also found him guilty of offence punishable under section 376 IPC, he sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal the High Court of judicature at Madras has confirmed the said conviction and sentence and it is against the said conviction the appellant is before us in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal before us is that on 15th January, 1996 at about 5.30 p. m. while PW-2 Kamalakannan was returning from the agricultural field in which he was working, he found the dead body of Vaishnavi with injuries all over her body in a channel near a tamarind tree. He proceeded to the village and informed his elder brother PW-3 about the finding of the dead body of vaishnavi who in turn approached PW- 1 who is the brother-in-law of the deceased and informed him of the same. It is the prosecution case that on hearing of the incident, PW-1 and other villagers went to the spot and found the dead body of Vaishnavi with injuries on her body and nail marks on her neck and other injuries which showed that she was also sexually assaulted. At that point of time, it is stated that PWs. 5, 6 and 7 informed PW-1 that they had seen the accused around 2.15 p. m. near the tamarind tree where about the dead body was found. Having come to know of the same PW-1 approached the hose of the accused but could not find him in the house Thereafter PW-1 went to Panruti police station where he lodged the complaint about the incident which was recorded by PW-14 and after registering the FIR, said PW-14 came to the spot and conducted spot mahazar and on next morning recorded the statement of PWs 4,5, 6 and 7. During the said investigation, he came to know that on 15th January, 1996 pws 5 and 6 when they were travelling in a bus, had seen the accused at the spot where the deceased was playing. It is the further case of the prosecution that the presence of the deceased at the spot was also noticed by pw-4 who is a young girl of 14 years age and who on being invited by the deceased played with the deceased till about 2. 00 p. m. Prosecution further alleges that PW-7 while passing through the said place had also seen the accused sitting near the place where deceased was playing. The further case of the prosecution is that PW- 7 that afternoon when he was returning back at about 2.30 p. m. saw the accused at the same spot and the accused requested PW-7 to give him lift in his cycle which was refused by PW- 7 on the ground that the accused was drunk. It is based on these facts PW- 14 arrested the accused on 21.1. 1996 and on an information given by the accused a bag containing tools used for masonry work and two lungies which contained blood stains were recovered.

(3.) It is based on the evidence of PWs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the recovery of blood stained lungi and the non explanation of the accused as to what happened after he was last seen with the deceased, the courts below held the appellant guilty as charged.