MUTHU ALIAS MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, dated 09.07.2008, made in S.C.No.81 of 2008, whereby the appellant/accused No.1, who stood charged under Section 324 IPC and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, along with another accused ranked as accused No.2, on trial, found guilty under both the charges and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the former charge and life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the latter charge and the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused No.1 under both the charges were ordered to run concurrently. However, accused No.2 was found not guilty and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a)P.W.1 Muthu, P.W.2 Suyambu, P.W.3 Periyasamy, P.W.4 Ramar and P.W.8 Devika are all belong to the same place. Accused No.1 is the son of Accused No.2. Accused No.1 and P.W.8 loved each other and since accused No.1 was reluctant to marry P.W.8, P.Ws.2, 3 and one Perumal Nadar, the deceased in this case, intervened and performed the marriage of accused No.1 and P.W.8 on 19.04.2004, as a result of which they got one boy aged about 2 years. (b)After the marriage, accused No.1 was employed in Chennai and whenever he went to his native place he was making demand from P.W.8 that she should get money and jewels from her parental home. This was, in turn, informed to the deceased Perumal Nadar, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and when they questioned the same, accused No.1 was giving evasive answer and on the contrary making the demand continuously. Therefore, P.W.8 lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Valliyur, against accused No.1 and the parents of accused No.1 Ex.P-8 is the copy of the said complaint. Accused family was under the impression that the deceased Perumal Nadar was instrumental for the same. (c)Based on Ex.P-8 Complaint, accused No.1, P.W.8 and others were called to the police station and the matter was settled amicably that accused No.1 should pay a sum of Rs.50000/- within a period of six months and thereafter they should live separately. According to the agreement, accused No.1 made a payment of Rs.25000/- on 13.04.2007 and the remaining amount was yet to be paid. Apart from that, a complaint was given by the mother of accused No.1 against the deceased Perumal Nadar and his brother in respect of a dispute over a tree and this was actually enquired into by the police and thus accused No.1 had developed grudge against Perumal Nadar. (d)On 25.09.2007, when accused No.1 came to the village from Chennai, he met P.W.8 and asked her to put her signature in a stamp paper where a Divorce was recorded but, P.W.8 demanded the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- from accused No.1 for putting her signature, for which accused No.1 was not amenable and he left the place. Accused No.2 was employed in a Windmill as a Night Time Security and his services were terminated three days prior to the occurrence and in his place the deceased Perumal Nadar was appointed. All the above, developed grudge in the minds of accused Nos.1 and 2 against the the deceased. (e)P.W.1 was employed as a Security in a Windmill situate in Vattavilai during the relevant time. The deceased Perumal Nadar was working in the windmill which is situate on the northern side of the windmill in which P.W.1 was working. On 25.09.2007 at about 6.30 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased were proceeded to their respective windmill, which are adjacent to each other, by their by-cycles and at about 11.00 p.m. in the night, when P.W.1 was just standing in front of the windmill where he was employed, accused No.1, armed with aruval, and accused No.2 came there and enquired P.W.1 about Perumal Nadar, using filthy language, for which P.W.1 answered in negative. Immediately, aggrieved over by the answer, accused No.1 attacked P.W.1 in which P.W.1 was injured and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 left the place. P.W.1 left the place and informed the same to P.W.2, P.W.3 and one Arumugam and all of them assembled and proceeded to the windmill where Perumal Nadar was employed and when they reached the windmill at about 11.30 p.m., they found the dead body of Perumal Nadar in a pool of blood, with severe injuries, lying in front of the room situate inside the windmill where he was employed. Thereafter they proceeded to the respondent Police Station and P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 Complaint at about 5.00 a.m. on 26.09.2007 to P.W.17, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Based on Ex.P-1 complaint, P.W.17 registered a case in Crime No.161/2007 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and Ex.P-22, First Information Report, was despatched to the Court through P.W.14, the Police constable, and copies of FIR were sent to the higher Police Officers for further action. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent for treatment with a medical memo. (f)P.W.5, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Radhapuram, examined P.W.1 at 11.00 a.m. on 26.09.2007 and gave treatment to the injuries found on his body. Ex.P-3 is the Accident Register Copy issued by P.W.5 to P.W.1, wherein P.W.5 has recorded the statement given by P.W.1 to the effect that he was assaulted by one unknown person. (g)P.W.20, the Inspector of Police attached to Coodankulam Police Station, was also in-charge of Radhapuram Police Station. He received a copy of Ex.P-22 FIR at 6.30 a.m. on 26.09.2007, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 and prepared Ex.P-25, the Observation Mahazar, and also drew Ex.P-26, the rough sketch. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Perumal Nadar and prepared Ex.P-27, the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem through P.W.15, the Police Constable, with Ex.P- 9 Requisition. P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, recovered, M.O.1 - bloodstained coconut leave, M.O.2 - bloodstained bedsheet, M.O.3 - bloodstained towel and M.O.4 - blood found on the cement mortar under Ex.P-28 Mahazar attested by P.W.10 and P.W.11. P.W.20 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (h)P.W.9, the Doctor attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, on receipt of requisition from the Investigator, conducted autopsy on the body of deceased at 3.30 p.m. on 26.09.2007 and after postmortem he gave Ex.P-10, the Postmortem Certificate, opining that the deceased would have died of complications of cut injuries to the neck. After postmortem, P.W.15, recovered M.O.8 - bloodstained Lungi from the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. (i)Pending investigation, P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, arrested both the accused on 26.09.2007 at about 04.00 p.m. and when enquired in the presence of P.W.12, accused No.1 came forward to give confessional statement, admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P-16. At that time, P.W.20 recovered M.O.5 - blood found on the right leg of accused No.1 under Ex.P-29 Mahazar, attested by P.W.12. Pursuant to Ex.P-16, accused No.1 took and produced M.O.6 - bloodstained aruval and M.O.7 - banian and the same were recovered under Ex.P-30 Mahazar, attested by P.W.12. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 were sent for judicial remand. (j)P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation in the case. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 08.10.2007, P.W.21 gave Ex.P-18 Requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, to conduct identification parade, pursuant to which P.W.13, the Judicial Magistrate, conducted Identification Parade and Ex.P-19 is the Report relating to the identification parade. Based on Ex.P-4 Requisition made by the Investigator, the material objects were sent for Chemical Analysis under Ex.P-5, the letter of the Court, which resulted in two reports Ex.P-6, the Chemical Examiner's Report and Ex.P-7, the Serologist's report. P.W.21 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, P.W.21 filed final report against the accused on 21.12.2007.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.81/2008 and necessary charges were framed. To prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked 30 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-30 and produced M.Os.1 to 8. 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, neither oral evidence nor document evidence was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charges against appellant/accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty, convicted him thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to above but, however, recorded an order of acquittal in respect of accused No.2 after forming an opinion that the prosecution has not proved the charge levelled against him and acquitted him of the said charge. Hence this appeal has been brought forth by accused No.1.