DOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Thiruvarur, made in S.C.No.15/2008 whereby the appellants stood charged namely A-1 under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC and A-2 under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, and on trial, A-1 was found guilty under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and A-2 under Sec.302 IPC, and both were awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Maniyarasan. P.Ws.2 to 6 were all neighbours residing in the same village. A-1 and A-2 are brothers. All the parties were residents of Chettipulam Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. Fourteen days prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased when the dog of the deceased caught the neck of the hen of the accused. There was a complaint to the police, and the parties were called and pacified. Thereafter, there was another quarrel in taking water from the public pipe. (b) While the matter stood thus, on 28.11.2006 at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to take bath in the irrigating channel situated outside the village. While she was taking bath, the deceased father after finishing his work, came over there to take bath. P.Ws.2 to 6 were working in the nearby field. At that time, A-1 and A-2 armed with wooden-logs, came to the place. A-2 attacked the deceased on the arms and legs, while A-1 attacked him on his forehead. When P.W.1 raised a distressing cry, P.Ws.2 to 6 rushed to the spot. When they were rushing, they also found the accused committing the crime. Then the severely injured victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi. P.W.12 was the Doctor who medically examined him and declared him dead. He also gave an intimation to the respondent police station marked as Ex.P8. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint, on the strength of which, P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.381/2006 under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC. The printed FIR is marked as Ex.P15. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, reached the Station, and at that time, an intimation, Ex.P8, that Maniyarasan died at the hospital was received. Then the case was altered to Sec.302 IPC, and the altered FIR is Ex.P16. Both Exs.P15 and P16 were sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, through a Constable. Following the same, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the Government Hospital, conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P17, the inquest report. Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P18. (d) On a requisition, P.W.13, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Maniyarasan and has issued Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury about 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy. (e) Pending investigation, both the accused persons were arrested on 30.11.2006, when they came forward to give confessional statements voluntarily. The same were recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P19, and that of A-2 is Ex.P20. Then A-1 produced M.O.1, wooden-log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P6. Equally, M.O.2, wooden-log, produced by A-2, was recovered under Ex.P7, mahazar. Then both the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate where they were judicially remanded. Thereafter, a requisition was given for the purpose of sending all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also M.Os.1 and 2, the weapons of crime, to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis which brought forth the chemical analyst's report, Ex.P13, and also the serologist's report, Ex.P14. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that according to P.W.1, on 28.11.2006 in the evening hours, she went to take bath in the irrigating channel situated away from the village; that it is an admitted position that there are number of tanks situated within the village; and that while so, there was no need for her to go to a distant place to take bath and that too, lonely. At this juncture, the learned Counsel would also point out that the evidence of P.W.1 as if she was present at the time of occurrence cannot but be false; that after coming to know that her father was actually killed, she would have gone to the spot, and after finding the dead body, she has gone to the police station and that was the reason; that though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 5.30 P.M., she has given the complaint at about 7.30 P.M., and the case was registered originally under Sec.307 IPC at about 8.30 P.M.; and that the FIR has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, at about 10.30 P.M.