S ATHIYAPPAN ALIAS PANCHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, dated 25.09.2009, made in S.C.No.101 of 2009, whereby the appellant/sole accused, who stood charged under Section 302 IPC, on trial, was found guilty under the charge of murder, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a)P.W.4 Rani knew the deceased Umamaheswari. The deceased Umamaheswari belonged to Tirunelveli and she was carrying on a profession of prostitution. P.W.4 and the deceased Umamaheswari know each other for about five years. The accused also belonged to Tirunelveli and both the accused and the deceased developed contacts and they were living in Tirunelveli. (b)Some time prior to the incident of murder in question, P.W.4 met the deceased Umamaheswari at Periyar Bus-Stand, Madurai, and saw a bandage on her head and she enquired, the deceased Umamaheswari informed P.W.4 that she was attacked by the accused at Tirunelveli and that she gave a complaint to the police, pursuant to which a case was registered against the accused and he was imprisoned and at that time the deceased Umamaheswari made a request to P.W.4 to find out a house for her near her house and then P.W.4 approached P.W.1 and got a house for the deceased Umamaheswari in the row of houses belonged to P.W.1, where one Anjalai was also living as a tenant in one of the row houses belonged to P.W.1. Thereafter, one day the deceased Umamaheswari phoned over to P.W.4 and informed her that the accused has come out from jail and when he met her he threatened her with a knife and criminally intimidated her. Immediately P.W.4 went over there and compromised them as the accused wanted to carry on his life along with the deceased Umamaheswari and sent them to the house of the deceased Umamaheswari at Thirupparankundam and they were living happily there. The accused was quarrelling with the deceased often alleging that she was having contacts with several persons. (c)Just prior to the occurrence, i.e., in night hours on 31.12.2008, both the deceased and the accused were quarrelling and the neighbours P.W.3 Easwari and one Anjalai compromised them. On the early morning hours on 01.01.2009, one Anjalai came to P.W.1 and informed to him that Umamaheswari is found dead and immediately he went to the occurrence house and after witnessing the same he proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 Complaint to P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.4 on receipt of phone message from Anjalai on 01.01.2009, proceeded to the occurrence house and found the body of Umamaheswari in a pool of blood. At that time the accused was not there. (d)P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P-1 registered a case in Crime No.1/2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and Ex.P- 9, the First Information Report, was sent to the Court and copies were sent to the higher police officers for further action. (e)P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.5 and another at 10.45 a.m. on 01.01.2009 and prepared Ex.P-2, the observation Mahazar and also drew Ex.P-10, the rough sketch. He recovered M.O.1 (series) - two pieces of bloodstained cement mortars and M.O.2 - sample cement mortar from the place of occurrence under Ex.P-3 Mahazar, attested by P.W.5 and another. At 11.30 a.m., P.W.11 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-11, the Inquest Report, and thereafter he sent the body for postmortem. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (f)P.W.7, the doctor attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, gave permission to keep the body in mortuary at 3.45 p.m. on 01.01.2009. P.W.9, the doctor attached to Madurai Medical College Hospital, on receipt of requisition from the Investigator conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 11.45 a.m. on 02.01.2009 and on completion of postmortem, he gave Ex.P-8, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased would have died of cranio cerebral injuries. (g)On receipt of a copy of postmortem certificate and recording the statement of the postmortem doctor, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, altered the case, which was originally registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., into one under Section 302 IPC and sent Ex.P-12, the altered FIR, to the Court. He arrested the accused on 05.01.2009 and when enquired in the presence of P.W.6 and another, the accused came forward to give a voluntary confessional statement, admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P-4, pursuant to which the accused took and produced M.O.3 - bloodstained blue colour shirt and the same was recovered under Ex.P-5 Mahazar attested by P.W.6 and another. Thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He gave Ex.P-13 Requisition to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. P.W.8, the Scientific Assistant working in the Forensic Department, received the material objects from the Judicial Magistrate Court and after analysis Ex.P-6, the Chemical Examiner's Report and Ex.P-7, the Serologist's Report, were sent to the Court. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed the final report against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.101/2009 and necessary charge was framed. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-14 and produced M.Os.1 to 3. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he flatly denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charge against appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty, convicted him thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal has been brought forth by the accused.