CHELLIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a Judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Madurai, made in S.C.No.265 of 2009, dated 08.02.2010, whereby the appellant/sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty on the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case can be stated as follows:- a) P.W.1 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.1 is a resident of Vittalpatti. P.W.2 was given in marriage to the accused/appellant, who was a native of Anaikaraipatti, 3 kilometers away from Vittalpatti. The accused/appellant is the son of the deceased. The accused is a drunkard and he used to often quarrel with his wife, P.W.2 in that mood and attacked her number of times in the past. P.W.2, who could not tolerate such kind of treatment, left Anaikaraipatti and was staying in her parental home at Vittalpatti. The deceased lost his wife long back and hence, he had no one to take care of him. In that view, P.W.2 used to prepare food at Anaikaraipatti and used to take and give it to her father-in-law at Vittalpatti. At about 5.00 p.m., on the date of occurrence, that was on 21.12.2008, the accused came to Vittalpatti and threatened her that if she gave food to his father, he would kill both. At about 8.15 p.m., when P.W.1 came back, P.W.2 informed him. Thereafter, accompanied by P.W.1, P.W.2 took food to her father-in-law and proceeded to Anaikaraipatti. When they were just nearing the house, they heard the distressing cry of the deceased from the house. Immediately, they ran to the house and found the accused dropping a grinding stone on the head of the deceased. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. When they raised alarm, the neighbors gathered. Then, they went near the body of the deceased and found him dead. b) P.W.1, immediately proceeded to the respondent police, where P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty and he gave a complaint Ex.P.1. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.62 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC and the express First Information Report, Ex.P9 was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. c) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.14, Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P.5, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.14, the rough sketch and also recovered M.Os.1 and 3 to 5, Grinding Stone, Bloodstained Earth, Sample Earth and Towel respectively from the place of occurrence under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.14. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.15, the inquest report. d) Then, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital, for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.6, the Doctor, attached to Thirumangalam Government Hospital, on receipt of the requisition Ex.P.9, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has narrated the injuries and has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cardio respiratory arrest due to vital organ (head and brain) injury caused 12 to 15 hours prior to autopsy. e) Pending investigation, the Investigator arrested the Accused on 22.12.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 7 and the same was recorded. The admissible part of the confessional statement of accused was marked as Ex.P.16. Thereupon, he produced M.O.2, knife and the same was recovered in the presence of the said witnesses under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.4. Then, he was sent for judicial remand. f) Then, the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the forensic department on a requisition made by the Investigating Officer through the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Following the same, the Chemical analyst's report, Ex.P.12 and Serologist's report Ex.P.13 were received by the Court. g) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court, which in turn has committed the case to the court of sessions and necessary charge was framed and the case was taken up for trial. h) In order to substantiate the charge, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and 5 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 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 a witness was examined nor a document was marked. i) After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and looking into the materials available, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case of murder and found the accused guilty and awarded sentence as referred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen before this court at the instance of the accused/appellant.

(3.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Mr.D.Malaichamy would submit that in the instant case, the specific charge levelled against the appellant was that he murdered his father at about 10.00 p.m. on 21.12.2008, in his residence and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.2 was given in marriage to the accused/appellant and due to the strained relationship, P.W.2 leaving her husband at Anaikaraipatti was living in P.W.1's house at Vittalpatti during the relevant time. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased was actually living at his residence at Anaikaraipatti, which is situate 3 kilometers away from Vittalpatti. Once P.W.2 has been living at Vittalpatti in the house of P.W.1 for a long time and it is also admitted by her that she used to prepare food and deliver the same to her father-in-law at Anaikaraipatti, which is situate about 3 kilometers away from Vittalpatti, the same could not be believed.