KUNCHARAVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, dated 19.08.2008, made in S.C.No.61/2004, whereby these appellants 1 to 5/ accused 1 to 5 stood charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed below: Accused Nos. Charge Under Finding Punishment Accused Nos. 1 to 5 U/s.341 IPC Guilty Each to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week S.I. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 U/s.302 read with S.34 IPC Guilty Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default RI for six month.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus: (a)Accused Nos.1 to 4 are brothers. Accused No.5 is the son of Accused No.2. All are residents of Seemanendhal Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent Police. The sister of Accused Nos.1 to 4, by name Arumugavel, was given in marriage to the deceased Muniyasamy. The marriage took place 18 years prior to the occurrence and three children born to them. The deceased Muniyasamy suspected the fidelity of his wife and there was a character assassination. On coming to know about the same, Accused No.3 questioned the deceased. The deceased assaulted Accused No.3 with aruval on the left eye brow and caused grievous injury which led to vision loss and a criminal case was actually pending against the deceased. Thus the families were on inimical terms. (b)P.W.1 Shanmugavel and P.W.2 Veluchamy are the brothers of the deceased Muniyasamy. P.W.3 Muthusamy is the brother-in-law of the deceased. They are all residents of the same village. On 13.02.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. when the deceased Muniyasamy was returning from Seemanendhal in a bi-cycle, near Seemanendhal-Ushilankulam junction all the accused, armed with aruvals, restrained the deceased and all of them attacked him indiscriminately, as a result of which he died on the spot. P.Ws.1 to 3 witnessed the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P-1, the complaint, to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, who was on duty. P.W.11, based on Ex.P-1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.20/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-13, the printed FIR and despatched the same to the court. Thereafter, P.W.11 took up the investigation in the case. (c)P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, rushed to the scene of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.5, the Village Administrative Officer, and another and prepared Ex.P-3, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.P-15, the rough sketch. In the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, P.W.11 conducted inquest on the body of Muniyasamy between 11.15 a.m. and 01.30 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-13, the inquest report. Thereafter, P.W.11 sent the dead body for postmortem with a requisition, through P.W.6, the Police Constable. Thereafter, from the place of occurrence P.W.11 recovered M.O.1 - bi-cycle, M.O.4 - bloodstained earth, M.O.6 - sample earth and M.O.5 - one pair of brown colour chappels under Ex.P-4, mahazar, attested by P.W.5 and another. P.W.11 examined some witnesses and recorded their statements. (d)P.W.4, the Doctor attached to Kamuthi Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Muniyasamy at about 03.00 p.m. on 13.02.2003. On completion of postmortem, P.W.4 issued Ex.P-2, the postmortem certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to head, 6 to 8 hours prior to autopsy. After postmortem, P.W.6, the Constable, recovered M.Os.7 to 12 from the body of Muniyasamy and handed over the same to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police. (e)Pending investigation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 on 20.02.2003 in the presence of P.W.5 and another and recorded the voluntary confessional statements given by them and pursuant to which, accused Nos.1 and 2 took and produced M.Os.2 and 3, the aruvals, and the same were recovered by P.W.11 under Ex.P-5 mahazar attested by P.W.5 and another. Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 were subjected to judicial custody. The admissible portions of the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 have been marked as Court Exhibits C-1 and C-2 respectively. P.W.11 examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex.P-16 is the altered F.I.R. P.W.11 gave a requisition to the court for sending the material objects for chemical examination, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P-7, the Serologist's Report and Ex.P-8, the Chemical Examiner's Report. On completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed the final report under Sections 341 and 302 IPC.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.61/2004 and necessary charges were framed. During trial, accused No.5 Sakthimurgan and one Jothimuthu were impleaded as per order in Cr.M.P.No.30/06, dated 27.02.2006. Since the said Jothimuthu was absconding, the case against him was split up and the same is pending in S.C.No.64/2007. To prove the charges against the accused Nos.1 to 5, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-16 and produced M.Os.1 to 12. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, three witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exhibits D-1 to D-7 were marked to prove their case of alibi. Two documents were marked as Court documents, namely Ex.C-1 and C-2. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charges against accused Nos.1 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt, found them guilty, convicted them thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to earlier. In such circumstances, this appeal has been brought forth by accused Nos.1 to 5.