SARAVANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam, made in S.C.No.86 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Balamurugan. One Muneeswari is the brother's wife of the deceased. The accused/appellant is the brother of the said Muneeswari. The family of the deceased owned a house at Subbukothanar Street in which Muneeswari was residing. P.W.1 and her husband were residing at Buddharpalli Street. Two years prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy altercation between the deceased and Muneeswari in their ancestral house. On seeing this, the accused/appellant objected to that. The deceased, the husband of P.W.1, questioned the conduct of the accused. Immediately, the accused took an aruval and attacked him. The matter was reported to P.W.5, who was the Secretary of the Community Sangam. The community people in their meeting informed the accused that he should not enter the street and pacified the situation. Despite the decision, the accused was often coming to the ancestral house. The same was questioned by the deceased. P.W.3, the father of P.W.1, brought his daughter to the house of P.W.1. Since they did not have the sufficient accommodation, they went to the ancestral house. At that time, there was a wordy altercation between the deceased and the said Muneeswari, and one was telling the other that they should vacate the house. (b) On 19.3.2007 at about 10'O Clock, the deceased informed Muneeswari that they would occupy the ancestral house and would not vacate. Aggrieved over the same, Muneeswari went to the police station and gave a report. On coming to know about the same, at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased questioned Muneeswari why she should go to the police station to give a complaint for nothing. At that time, the deceased and Muneeswari were quarrelling. The accused who came there, asked his sister Muneeswari about the quarrel. Then uttering the words "he should not be allowed to do like this", the accused went outside with anguish. The deceased shouted at Muneeswari and came out of the house and was just proceeding in the street. P.Ws.1 and 2 also came out. At that time, the accused who was standing with an aruval, repeatedly attacked him on his neck. The same was witnessed not only by P.Ws.1 and 2, but also by P.Ws.3 and 4. When there was a distressing cry, he left the place of occurrence. The husband of P.W.1 died at the spot. (c) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a report, Ex.P1, at 23.45 hours to P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.179 of 2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P15, was despatched to the Court, and it has reached the Judicial Magistrate at about 1.30 A.M. on 20.3.2007. (d) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P16. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of Balamurugan in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P17. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. (e) P.W.9, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Bodinayakanur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Balamurugan and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P5, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to external injury No.1 and 2 and its corresponding internal injuries 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy. (f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 20.3.2007, when he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P18 is the admissible part of the confessional statement. Consequent upon the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, M.O.6, nylon bag, and M.O.7, jute rope, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P11, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P12, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 13 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he 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 beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded the above punishment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.