KANMANI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.IV, Periyakulam, made in S.C.No.29 of 2007, dated 18.12.2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:- i) P.W.7 is the father of the deceased Anbu @ Anbalagan. He was originally employed at Thamaraikulam and thereafter, he was having his profession as Photographer at Madras. He used to go to his village, Thamaraikulam. P.W.3 a native of Thamaraikulam, took her daughter to Madras for treatment. At that time, the accused was cutting trees. On seeing this, in order to help her, P.W.3 took the accused to Thamaraikulam and she was employed in the house of P.W.3. After some time, the accused wanted to have a separate residence. At that time, P.W.4 a native of Thamaraikulam, was employed at Thiruppur, and her house was kept vacant. On a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, the house was occupied by the accused. ii) On 20.10.2006, the deceased came to Thamaraikulam. P.Ws.5, 8 and 11 were his close friends and on that night the deceased was accompanied by P.Ws.5, 8 and 11, and they consumed liquor. Thereafter, the deceased informed that he was going to the house. So saying the deceased left. On the way, he went to the house, where the accused was staying. In the past the accused and the deceased developed intimacy. At that night, the accused came to know that the deceased has already developed intimacy with another lady in Madras and he has got a plan to marry her. On coming to know about the same, the accused decided to finish the deceased, Anbu @ Anbalagan off. Then, she mixed sleeping pills in the milk and it was given to him. When Anbu @ Anbalagan due to intoxication and also by consuming sleeping pills, fell asleep and taking advantage of the same, the accused took the grinding stone and dashed on his head and caused severe injuries, and thereby Anbu @ Anbalagan met his end. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Since Anbu @ Anbalagan did not come back, P.W.7 went in search of him and he enquired his friends P.W.5, 8 and 11. On suspicion, all of them proceeded to the house, where the accused was staying and they found the dead body, but the accused was not found therein. iii)While the matter stood thus, the accused proceeded to the Government Hospital, Periyakulam, where P.W.15 was the doctor on duty and the accused informed P.W.15, the doctor, that she has consumed Organo Phosphorous a poisonous substance and she was immediately admitted for treatment. An intimation was given to the respondent police. iv)On receipt of the intimation P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, proceeded to the Government Hospital, recorded the statement of the accused, which was marked as Ex.P7. On the strength of the said statement, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.478 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P8 is the printed first information report. Ex.P8 was despatched to the Court. v)P.W.19, the Inspector of Police of the circle concerned, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and a rough sketch Ex.P17. Besides that, he also recovered all the material object from the place of occurrence. The investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, which was marked as Ex.P18. vi)Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, for the purpose of autopsy. On receipt of the requisition made by the investigator, Ex.P9, P.W.15 the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P10, the postmortem certificate opining that the deceased died out of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organ namely brain. vii)Pending the investigation, the investigator arrested the accused on 25.10.2006, at 12 'O'Clock and she gave a confessional statement and she was sent for judicial remand. viii) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report. The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed. ix)In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits and 5 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She denied them as false. Neither any defence witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the defence. x)After hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the materials available, the trial court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at the instance of the accused/appellant.

(3.) Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel made the following submissions; a) According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 05.30 a.m. on 21.10.2000. Though prosecution has examined 20 witnesses, no one was available to speak the occurrence. Thus, the prosecution had relied on the circumstantial evidence. Though P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 were examined by the prosecution, they have all categorically stated that they went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. Apart from that, the motive attributed against the accused for committing the crime was that while the deceased Anbu @ Anbalagan had intimacy with the accused and he also had intimacy with some other lady in Madras by which the appellant was aggrieved and hence, committed the crime, but, no one has spoken about any intimacy of Anbu @ Anbalagan either with the accused or with the other lady in Madras. Thus, the motive attributed by the prosecution against the accused fails. b)The learned counsel also made a caution that as per the settled principle of law in a given case like this, while the case rests on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must constitute a chain without a snap and also pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused no one could have committed the offence. In the instance case, the prosecution is able to prove certain circumstances, but they did not have a link or make out a chain pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. c)In the instant case, according to the witnesses P.Ws.5, 8 and 11, they last met the deceased at 1.00 'O'clock on the night, but no one has stated that he went to the house of the accused. It is true that the dead body was found in the front part of the house of the accused, but that alone cannot be a circumstance by which it can be taken that it was the accused who murdered the deceased. d)Added further the counsel that even the medical opinion, which was actually placed before the Court, did not support the case of the prosecution and the manner in which such crime was actually committed was not spoken to by any one of the witnesses and even the blood stained earth which was alleged to have been recovered from the place of occurrence was not sent for Chemical Analysis and in respect of those sent, group of the blood was inconclusive and thus in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either motive or necessary circumstances or the medical opinion was not a corroborative piece of evidence and hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and the accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal which the learned trial Judge, has failed to do so erroneously and hence the same has to be considered by this Court.