THANGAIYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirming his conviction for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'ipc') , and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned sessions judge, Kanyakumari.

(3.) Background facts as unfolded during trial by the prosecution are essentially as follows: 3.1. One Selvamani Nadar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was having industry and he employed a number of girls. The accused used to make fun of the girls/ workers outside the factory and this was objected to by the deceased several times. On that score, there had been enmity between the deceased and the accused. 3.2. At about 8.30 p. m. on 1.5.1990, PW-1, pw-2 and one Murugesan were standing in front of Bensam Ground, south of kulachal-Nagercoil Mail Road. The accused was sitting on the eastern side of a culvert. There was a tube light burning and hence there was enough light at that place. At that time, the deceased, who came in a bicycle proceeding from east to west, took a turn towards south. The accused rushed to the deceased saying "you die, old man" and hit him with a stick (M. O. 1) on his head. The deceased sustained injuries and there was profuse bleeding. PW-1, PW-2 and murgesan immediately went near him and when the accused saw them coming near ran towards west, leaving the weapon viz. , m. O. 1 stick. Thereafter, PW-1, PW-2, murugesan and the wife of the deceased took the deceased to the Government hospital at Kulachal. After giving first aid to the deceased, the doctors in the said hospital advised to take the deceased to nagercoil for further treatment the aforementioned persons thereafter took the deceased to Nagercoil and at the Government hospital, Kottar, the deceased was treated by Doctor Rani Fnoch (PW-6). 3.3. The doctor found several injuries. PW-1 narrated the incident to the Head Constable (PW-10) at the police station who recorded the first information report (exhibit P-11). Same was dispatched to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital (PW-7) treated the deceased who breathed his last at about 1.25 a. m. on 2.5.1990. On receiving information about the death the case which was originally registered under Sections 307, 323 and 34 IPC was registered under section 302 IPC, and necessary information was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. On postmortem 6 injuries were noticed, out of which 3 were external and the rest were internal. Injuries 1 and 2 as noticed were abrasions but the fatal injury i. e. injury no. 3 was stated to be 4" linear oblique sutured wound over the right parietal scalp. The doctor opined that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. On 4.5.1990 the accused was arrested and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was placed. The accused pleaded innocence. The trial court found that the evidence of eye witnesses PWs. 1, 2 and 3 were cogent and credible. The accused used to tease girls working in the factory of the deceased. When the deceased objected to the same, there was some misunderstanding and at the time of occurrence when the deceased was coming by bicycle, the accused rushed towards him and attacked him; resulting the fatal injury. When the eye witnesses rushed to help the deceased, the accused ran away. Placing reliance on the evidence and considering the entire material on record the trial court found the accused guilty and convicted as aforesaid. An appeal was preferred before the High Court questioning the conviction and sentence. Before the High Court, it was urged that PWs. 1 and 2 were related to the deceased, and PW-3 was a chance witness and no credence should be put on their evidence. The High Court did not accept the plea and finding the analysis of evidence by the trial court to be in order, upheld the conviction and sentence.