PALANISAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, made in S.C.No.109 of 2009 whereby the appellants, five in number, ranked as A-1 to A-5 respectively, stood charged namely A-1 under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and A-2 to A-5 under Sections 147 and 302 read with 109 of IPC, and on trial, A-1 was found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence, while A-2 to A-5 were found guilty under Sec.302 read with 109 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence. In respect of other charge, they were acquitted.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Murugesan. A-1 and A-2 are the parents, A-3 and A-4 are the brothers and A-5 is the sister of P.W.2. Three months prior to the occurrence, since there was a family dispute, the deceased was attacked by A-1 and A-4. A panchayat was convened, and it was pacified and closed. Thereafter, on the date of occurrence i.e., 8.6.2008, during day hours, P.Ws.3 and 4 invited the deceased to their village to attend a festival. When he was about to move, P.W.2, wife, objected for his going. Despite the same, he went over there. At about 1.00 A.M., they received a phone message from the neighbouring house that he was murdered. Immediately, P.W.1 accompanied by others went to the place where they found the dead body nearby a water tank. Then on enquiry, they came to know that A-1 to A-5 have caused the death. (b) P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P1, the complaint, at about 6.00 A.M. on 9.6.2008. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty that time, registered a case in Crime No.214 of 2008 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P8, was despatched to the Court. (c) The investigation was taken up by P.W.12, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, who proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P4, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P11. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P12, the inquest report. The dead body and the place of occurrence were photographed through P.W.7, the Photographer, and M.O.3 series are the photos, and M.O.4 series are the negatives. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. (d) P.W.11, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vedasandur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Murugesan and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P9, to the effect that death could have occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to autopsy. The Doctor has given his opinion under Ex.P10 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. (e) Pending investigation, all the accused were arrested, and A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of P.W.5 and another, pursuant to which he produced M.O.8, bloodstained aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then the Investigator amended the case to Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC. The amended FIR, Ex.P13, was sent to the Court. (f) All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition given by the Investigator through the Court concerned, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P18, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P19, the biological report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 12 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case insofar as A-1 under Sec.302 of IPC and insofar as A-2 to A-5 under Sec.302 read with 109 of IPC, and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.