MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dindigul, made in S.C.No.9 of 2009 whereby the accused/appellants four in number, stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: ACCUSED CHARGES FINDING PUNISHMENT A-1 & A-2 148 IPC Guilty 3 years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence A-3 & A-4 147 IPC Guilty 2 years RI A-2 & A-3 341 IPC Guilty 1 month RI A-1 302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence A-2 & A-3 302 r/w 109 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence A-1 & A-4 341 IPC Guilty 1 month RI A-2 302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence A-1 & A-4 302 r/w 109 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence A-1 & A-3 323 IPC Guilty 1 year RI A-3 & A-4 341 IPC Guilty One month RI A-2 326 IPC Guilty 10 years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence A-3 & A-4 326 r/w 109 IPC Guilty 10 years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence A-3 & A-4 323 IPC Guilty 1 year RI

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the first deceased (D1) Raju. P.W.2 is the wife of the second deceased (D2) Mariappan. P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of D1. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the sons of D1 and brothers of D2. They were all washerman by profession. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and both the juvenile accused are all members of the same family. They were also washerman by profession. There was a business rivalry that the accused party was demanding and getting less charges for washing, and the same was questioned by D1. A-1 and his family members were aggrieved over the same. (b) While the matter stood thus, on the date of occurrence i.e., 9.11.2007, at about 7.00 P.M., when P.Ws.1 to 6 and D1 and D2 were all in front of their house, A-1 and A-2 armed with knives and accompanied by the other two accused shown as A-3 and A-4 and also the other juvenile accused, came to the place with the common object, and in furtherance of the common object of causing the death of D1 and D2 and on the instigation of A-2 and A-3, who also caught hold of D2 Mariappan, A-1 uttering "you should be finished off this day", stabbed him, and on different parts of the body, A-1 also attacked him. D2 fell down. Then A-1, A-4 and the other juvenile accused caught hold of D1 Raju, and he was stabbed by A-2 with a knife. While P.Ws.1 and 3 intervened, P.W.1 was attacked by A-1 and A-3, and P.W.3 was attacked by A-2, while she was fisted by A-3 and A-4. This occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 6. When there was a distressing cry and the crowd nearby gathered, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. (c) Both the deceased D1 and D2 were found dead, and P.Ws.1 and 3 were immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Vathalakundu, where P.W.13, the Doctor, medically examined P.W.1 and noted the injuries as found in the accident register copy, Ex.P11. P.W.13 gave initial treatment to P.W.3 and noted the injuries in Ex.P12, the wound certificate, wherein the injuries were found to be grievous. Then, she was advised to be taken to Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital. But, on the way, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Dindigul, and P.W.7, the Doctor, gave the treatment. Further, she was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where treatment was given by P.W.8, the Doctor, to her. (d) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, at about 2100 hours, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.790 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P16, was despatched to the Court. (e) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P8, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P20. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of Raju, D1, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P21, the inquest report. Equally, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Mariappan, D2, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P22, the inquest report. The dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. (f) P.W.13, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Vathalakundu, on receipt of the requisitions, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raju and has given a postmortem certificate, Ex.P14. The same Doctor has also conducted postmortem on the dead body of Mariappan and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P15. The Doctor has opined that both of them would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. (g) Pending the investigation, A-1, A-2 and A-3 were arrested on 10.11.2007, and they gave confessional statements voluntarily. The same were recorded. Pursuant to the same, A-1 and A-2 produced two knives, M.O.1 series, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-1 also produced M.O.13, shirt, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, for remand. On 11.11.2007, A-4 was arrested, and she was sent for judicial remand. Thereafter, both the juvenile accused were also arrested and sent for judicial remand. (h) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P18, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P19, 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 charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 19 witnesses and also relied on 22 exhibits and 13 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, but two documents were marked on their side. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt insofar as A-1 to A- 4 and found them guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.