MANICKAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused stands charged for the offences under Secs.302 and 506, Part II, I.P.C. in that on 23.1.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. at Ariyakoundampatti East Street, the accused with the intention of committing murder of one Mallika stabbed her with knife and caused death to her and during the course of the same occurrence, he has also criminally intimidated the witnesses Mahalakshmi and Shanthi by threatening them to cause death or grievous injuries.

(2.) ON the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and the case of prosecution on the evidence of P.Ws. is as follows: P.W.1 is the aunt of the deceased Mallika. The deceased Mallika is the sister's daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Mallika. After the death of the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 brought the deceased and her sister to her house and she was bringing them up. The deceased was residing in the house of P.W. 1 and her family members. P.W.2 was married to one person at Salem and she did not live with him and she also came back and is residing with P.W.1. The accused is the father of one Kannan for whom the accused negotiated with P.W.1 to get Mallika since deceased married to him. As the said Kannan's conduct was not satisfactory, P.W.1 refused for the alliance. 20 days prior to the occurrence, marriage of the deceased Mallika was fixed with one Alagesan of Meiyanur village and engagement also had taken place. After some days after the engagement on one Sunday at about 6.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and asked her as to why she refused to give Mallika the deceased in marriage to his son. P.W.1 stated that she did not like that boy. The accused challenged that as to how the marriage would happen and left that place. Three days thereafter, when the deceased was cleaning vessels in front of P.W.1 house P.W.1 went to take water from a tap which was 25 feet away from her house and at that time the accused had come from his house towards the house of P.W.1 which is about 143 feet away and came near the deceased Mallika. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time in P.W.1's house. The accused pulled the tuft of the deceased Mallika and stabbed her on stomach with knife M.O.1. At that time P.W.1 and her uncle's daughter P.W.3 came running to the scene of occurrence shouting that" "TAMIL" P.W.1's mother also came out. The accused threatened them to stab them also if they go nearer and he has stated that the girl who was not available to his son should not be available for anybody. By uttering these words, the accused stabbed the deceased Mallika with M.O.1 knife on her leg and hand and on hearing the noise of P.W.3 and others, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The intestine of the deceased Mallika had come out. P.W.2 who was taking bath inside the house of P.W.1, on hearing the noise, came to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased with bleeding injuries and the intestines having come out. P.W.3 also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 and others pushed the intestine of the deceased inside the stomach and covered it with saree and bed sheet on her stomach. and took her in an auto to Salem Government Hospital. The father of the deceased who had come there accidentally and one Perumayi took the deceased to the hospital in an auto. P.W.1 took another auto and went to the place where her husband was working and she took her husband went to the hospital. By the time. P.W.1 reached the hospital, the deceased Mallika was dead. P.W.8 the doctor who examined the deceased found her dead and sent the death intimation Ex.P-11 and accident report Ex.P-12 to the police. P.W.1 gave complaint to the Suramangalam police station under Ex.P-1. P.W.11 received Ex.P-1, registered it in Crime No.43 of 1991 under Sec.302, I.P.C. prepared F.I.R. Ex.P-15, sent it through P.C. to the court and copies to the concerned authorities. P.W.12 on receipt of the F.I.R. took up investigation, drew rough sketch Ex.P-16, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.4, seized blood stained earth M.O.6, and plain earth M.O.7 under mahazar Ex.P-4 in the presence of witnesses, held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P-2 examined witnesses and sent the dead body of Mallika for post mortem along with requisition Ex.P-13 through P.W.10. P.W.9 doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mallika and found the following injuries: "(1) An incised wound of irregular shape 1-1/2" deep in right upper arm anteriorly. (2) Punctured wound 2" length depth 6 cm in the right mid auxiliary line of the chest involving 11th rib also. (3) An incised wound in right thigh laterally 2" length involved upto bone deep exposing the bone. (4) Three abraded area of irregular shape above the red injury. (5) An incised wound in left forearm 6" " 1-1/2" cm muscle deep posteriorly near the elbow. (6) Incised wound 3" length " 1 cm " 1" depth in left anterior aspect of forearm. (7) In left hypochondrium region adjoining lumbar region an incised wound 8" " 2 cm through which intestines seen protruding outside. (8) In left limber region - an incised wound 6" " 1 cm " 2". (9) An irregular incised wound extends 12"from Sub umbical region to medial aspect of left thigh abdominal sub cutaneous tissue exposed and Muscle deep in thigh left thigh lateral aspect 1" " 1 cm" muscle deep." The doctor has issued Ex.P-14, post-mortem certificate gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries caused to her and the injuries are possible by stabbing with M.O.1 knife, He has also stated that the Injury in the liver in due to causing of injury No.2 and death would have caused due to injury Nos.7 and 8. After the post mortem, P.W.10 recovered the dresses worn by the deceased. P.Ws.5 and 6 produced the accused with the knife M.O.1 on 30.1.1991 and P.W.12 recovered it under form No.95 Ex.P-17 attested by P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.12 sent the M.Os. to court and gave requisition Ex.P-7 for sending them for chemical analysis. P.W.7 the head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, Thiruchekodu, on receipt of the M.Os. along with Ex.P-7, sent the M.Os.1 to 7 along with the court letter Ex.P-8 for chemical analysis and received the chemical analysis report Ex.P-9 and serological report Ex.P-10. P.W.13, after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses regarding the place of occurrence is not corroborated on account of absence of blood stains in the place of occurrence and the evidence of eye witnesses is also not corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W.9 who conducted post mortem and the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have also not mentioned the name of the accused to Perumal father of the deceased who took the deceased to the hospital and so, the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence and so, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable.