SHANTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, dated 09.12.2009, made in S.C.No.104 of 2009, whereby the appellant/sole accused, who stood charged under Sections 449 and 302 IPC, on trial, found guilty of both the charges, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo 24 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC and life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to undergo 19 months simple imprisonment for the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a)P.W.1 Lalitha Sounthirapandi owned a row of houses, known as 'Soundar Compound', in which the deceased Kannan @ Krishnarajan, along with his family members, was living in a house while the appellant/accused, who is distantly related to the deceased, was also living in a house. The appellant/ accused lost her husband. P.W.13 is the daughter of the appellant and she was working as a Lecturer in a College at Erode. The deceased was leading a wayward life and he was a drunkard. P.W.16 is the brother and P.W.17 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.20 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other over some money dispute. P.Ws.2 to 4, 10, 12 and 19 were all residents in the same Soundar Compound where the accused and the deceased were living. (b)On the noon hours of 11.10.2008, which was the date of occurrence, P.W.20, the mother-in-law of the deceased, took along with her P.W.17 and her children to Chennai. At about 9.00 p.m., the appellant/accused entered into the house of the deceased and there was a wordy altercation between the deceased and the appellant. The above witnesses, who were residing in Soundar Compound, not only found the accused in the company of the deceased but also they witnessed the wordy altercation between them. On the next day morning, P.W.1 saw the deceased lying inside house with blood oozing from his nose and immediately she gave information to the police. (c)P.W.16, the brother of the deceased, who was living in Thoothukudi, at 3.00 p.m. on 12.10.2008, received information from P.W.1 that his brother, the deceased, was found dead with bleeding injuries. He proceeded to Soundar Compound where the deceased was residing and found the dead body of his brother in the house. Then P.W.16 proceeded to the respondent Police and gave Ex.P-9, the Complaint. (d)P.W.23, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P-9 Complaint from P.W.1 at about 6.30 a.m. on 12.10.2008, registered a case in Crime No.160/2008 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-12, the First Information Report. He sent the Express FIR to the Court through P.W.21, the Police Constable, and despatched copies to the higher police officers for further action. (e)P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of FIR at 7.15 a.m. on 12.10.2008, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.5 and another and prepared Ex.P-1, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.P-13, the rough sketch. He recovered M.O.1 - the bloodstained cement mortar pieces and M.O.2 - sample cement mortar pieces under Ex.P-2 Mahazar attested by the same witnesses. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses between 8.15 p.m. and 10.15 p.m. and prpared Ex.P- 14, the inquest report. P.W.24 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (f)P.W.18, the doctor attached to the Sathankulam Government Hospital, on receipt of Ex.P-10 Requisition from the Investigator conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and on completion of postmortem he gave Ex.P-11, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased would have died of Asphyxia due to compression of larynx and respiratory passage caused by the injuries sustained by him. After postmortem, P.W.22, the Police Constable, recovered M.O.3 - bloodstained shirt and M.O.4 - bloodstained Lungi, from the body of the deceased and handed them over to the Inspector of Police. (g)Pending investigation, On 14.10.2008 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.24 arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and when enquired the accused came forward to give a voluntary confessional statement, admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P-15, pursuant to which the accused took and produced M.O.5 - rope and the same was recovered under Ex.P-16 Mahazar attested by P.Ws.6 and 7. Thereafter P.W.24 sent the accused to judicial remand. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.24 gave Ex.P-17, the requisition, to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis and accordingly they were sent to Forensic Lab under Ex.P-18, the letter of the Court, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P-19, the Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P-20, the Serology Report. On 09.12.2008 the accused took and produced M.O.6 - Table Fan in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and the same was recovered under Ex.P-21 Mahazar attested by the same witnesses. P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, P.W.24 filed final report against the accused.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.104/2009 and necessary charges were framed. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 24 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21 and produced M.Os.1 to 6. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, she flatly denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor documentary was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charges against appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, found her guilty, convicted her thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the accused.