SANTHANAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern these two Crl.A.Nos.175 and 176 of 2002. The first one has arisen from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Karur, dated 12.12.2001, made in S.C. No.84/2001, whereby the three appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, who stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, on trial, found guilty of the said charge, convicted thereunder and each of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and hence this appeal. Crl.A.No.176/2002 has arisen from the judgment of the same Sessions Division made in C.C.No.1/2001, dated 12.12.2001, whereby the appellant/juvenile accused, who stood charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, on trial, found guilty of the said charge, convicted thereunder and sent her to the Special Home for Women, Trichy, for being kept there for three years and hence this appeal.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: (a)Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Sirumbayee in this case. Accused No.2 is the cousin of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.2. The juvenile accused, who has been ranked as accused No.4 in FIR, is the daughter of accused Nos.2 and 3. P.W.1 Manickam is the brother of the deceased Sirumbayee. P.W.2 Periyasamy and P.W.3 Sirumbayee are the husband and wife and they were owning lands adjacent to the land which was originally owned by accused No.1. P.W.4 is the village administrative Officer and P.W.5 is a resident of the same village. (b)Accused No.1 and the deceased Sirumbayee executed an othi deed in favour of P.w.1 in the year 1998 in respect of a land owned by them and got Rs.20,000/-. P.W.7 is the document writer. The said land was under the cultivation of P.W.1. While the matter stood thus, accused No.1 sold the said piece of land to accused No.2 and hence there arose a quarrel between P.W.1 on the one side and the accused on the other side. Aggrieved over the same, the deceased Sirumbayee deserted her husband but, living in the same piece of land by putting a hut. This was not liked by all the accused. (c)On the date of occurrence, that was on 22.10.2000, when P.W.5 was just grazing his cattle accused No.1 to 3 hatched up a plan to vacate the deceased Sirumbayee on that date. Within a short span of time, P.W.5 came to know that Sirumbayee was murdered. (d)P.Ws.2 and 3, the adjacent land owners, were also grazing cattle in their land and at that time the deceased Sirumbayee was also grazing cattle in her land. P.Ws.2 and 3 heard the distressing cry of Sirumbayee from her land. Immediately, P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed there and witnessed accused Nos.1 and 3 and the juvenile accused attacking Sirumbayee with sticks and when they raised alarm, all the accused and the juvenile accused ran away from the place of occurrence leaving the sticks there itself. P.Ws.2 and 3 went nearby and found Sirumbayee dead and immediately they informed the same to P.W.1, the brother of the deceased. P.W.1, on receipt of intimation, proceeded to the spot and thereafter went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 Report to P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station. (e)on the strength of Ex.P-1 Report, P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.304/2000 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-7, the First Information Report, and sent the same to the Court. Copies of Ex.P-7 were sent to the higher police officers for further action. (f)P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of Ex.P-7 FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer, and another and prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.P-8, the rough sketch. He recovered M.Os.1 to 4, four sticks, from the place of occurrence under Ex.P-3 Mahazar attested by P.W.4 and another. He also caused the place of occurrence to be photographed with the help of P.W.6, the photographer and M.O.5 series are the photographs and M.O.6 series are negatives. Thereafter, P.W.11 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdarw and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-9, the inquest report. He sent the body of the deceased for postmortem through P.W.9, the Head Constable, with Ex.P-4 Requisition. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (g)P.W.8, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Kulithali, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 23.10.2000 and on completion of postmortem, P.W.8 gave Ex.P-5, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased would have died of shock an haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by her, 22 to 24 hours prior to postmortem. After postmortem, P.W.9, the Head Constable, recovered M.O.7 - saree, M.O.8 - blouse and M.O.9 - petticoat from the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of police with his Special Report Ex.P-6. (h)Pending investigation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, arrested accused No.1 on 23.10.2000 and subjected him to judicial custody. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the juvenile accused surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, on 25.10.2000. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of evidence, P.W.11 filed the final report against accused Nos.1 to 3 and the juvenile accused under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.84/2000 insofar as accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned and in respect of the juvenile accused, the case was split up and taken on file as C.C.No.1 of 2001 and necessary charges were framed in both the cases. To prove the charges against the accused 1 to 3 and the juvenile accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9 and produced M.Os.1 to 9 in both the cases. 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, accused Nos.1 to 3 and the juvenile accused flatly denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, two witnesses were examined as D.ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-4 in both the cases, to prove their plea of alibi. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charges against appellants in Crl.A.No.175 of 2002/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.176 of 2002/juvenile accused beyond reasonable doubt, found them guilty, convicted them thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence these appeals by accused Nos.1 to 3 and the juvenile accused.