ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 30.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Salem in S.C. No.160 of 2007, whereby the first appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the second appellant stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused stood charged for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and on trial, the first appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and found second appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and found third accused guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:(i) P.W.1 is the wife, P.W.2 is the daughter and P.W.10 is the son of the deceased Kannupaiyan. P.W.3 is the grand daughter and P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.10 Ramesh was employed as a Cleaner. During the relevant time, the first accused was working as Driver. Two years 3 months prior to the occurrence, the first accused gave Rs.6,000/- to P.W.10 with a request to hand over the said amount to his mother. P.W.10 took Rs.1,000/- out of the same and gave the balance amount to the mother of the first accused. Though many times there was a demand for the payment of the said amount, it was not effected and hence, they were on inimical terms.(ii) On the date of occurrence, when P.Ws.1 to 4, 10 and 11 were present along with the deceased, accused 1 to 3 came to the spot and there was a demand for the payment of the money and there was a quarrel. In that process, the first accused attacked P.W.10 on his left shoulder with knife. On seeing this, the father of P.W.10 viz. deceased Kannupaiyan intervened. Immediately accused 1 and 2 dashed his head on the nearby wall. He was found unconscious and later on, died at the spot itself. THE third accused attacked P.W.1 with hands and caused injury on the forehead. All the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. This was witnessed by all the witnesses. (iii) P.W.1 proceeded to respondent-police and gave Ex.P12 complaint. P.W.15 Sub Inspector of Police received Ex.P12 complaint and on the strength of which, a case was registered in Crime No.615 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Express First Information Report Ex.P21 was despatched to the Court along with Ex.P12 complaint. (iv) P.W.16 Inspector of Police took up investigation and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P1 and rough sketch Ex.P22. He also recovered earth containing vomited particles M.O.3 and ordinary earth M.O.4. THEreafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared Ex.P23 inquest report and sent the dead body for the purpose of autopsy. P.Ws.1 and 10 got treatment in the Government Hospital, Salem and the Accident registers and the Wound Certificates are marked as Ex.P10 and 9 respectively.(v) P.W.8 Doctor, after conducting autopsy on the dead body, issued the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P11, wherein the following injuries are found:-" (1) Abrasion Rt. Elbow 1x1 cm, 0.5x0.5cm, 0.5x0.5 cm. (2) Contusion both side occipital region of scalp 8x6 cms dark red(3) Sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage over the both occipital lobes of brain (antemortem)OPINION:- Died due to the effects of head injuries."(vi) THEreafter, P.W.17, Inspector of Police conducted further investigation. Pending investigation, the first and second accused were arrested on 4.6.2000. THEy gave confession statements voluntarily and the same were recorded in the presence of witnesses. THE admissible portion of the same were marked as Ex.P3 and P25 respectively. Pursuant to the confession statement, the first accused produced M.O.5 knife and the same was recovered under the cover of mahazar. THE third accused was arrested on 7.6.2006 and she gave confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. (vii) All the accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were sent to Forensic Department for chemical analysis and chemical analysis reports are marked as Ex.P17 and P20 respectively. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the defence plea though occurrence took place in night hours. P.Ws.1 and 2, who have examined as witnesses, are close relatives. On a careful scrutiny, the Trial court should have rejected their evidence since there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence. Three witnesses were examined on the side of defence. It is made clear that P.W.10 borrowed Rs.6,000/- and when the same was demanded, there was a wordy quarrel. The defence witnesses viz. D.Ws.1 to 3 have categorically spoken to the fact that when the quarrel was going on, the said Kannupaiyan fell down on the floor. It was a natural death. Therefore, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 that they were actually present at the scene of occurrence should be believed.