KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 31.7.2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No.78 of 2007, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:- (i) THE deceased was an agent for selling kidneys. He approached the accused and asked him to part with his kidney for selling it at higher price and on his representation, the accused came to Madras. On 13.11.2006 at early hours at 00.15, the deceased was sleeping at the portico of intensive Maternity Wing Building at Maternity Hospital at Egmore. THE accused was sitting sleepless and thinking over about giving his kidney. He thought that if he would remove his kidney, he would die. Suddenly, the accused, with an intention to commit murder of the deceased, took a heavy stone and dropped it on the head of the deceased and thereby, caused his death. (ii) This was witnessed by P.W.1, plastic goods vendor and P.W.2 who was working in the cycle shop nearby and they were sitting and chatting with each other. On seeing this, they caught the accused red handed and asked him about the incident. He narrated the reason as to why he caused the death of the deceased. P.W.1 advised him to surrender before the police, instead, the accused ran away. (iii) P.W.1 went to the respondent police and gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police P.W.6, who in turn, on the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.2130 of 2006 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P7 Express First Information Report was despatched to the Court. P.W.6 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and sketch Ex.P8 in the presence of witnesses. THEreupon, he recovered blood stained stone M.O.1, blood stained cement plaster pieces M.O.2 and sample cement plaster piece M.O.3 in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P3. (iv) He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P9. THE dead body was subjected to autopsy. Pursuant to the request made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 Doctor R. Parimala issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P6, where she opined that the deceased would appear to have died of "head injury". In the said Certificate, he found the following features:- "Moderately built. Laceration : Right forehead 1 x 0.5 cm. Sub Arachnoid Haemorrahage, Sub Dural Haemorrhage present. Brain is oedematous. Fracture of left & right middle cranial fossa. Heart chambers filled with fluid Blood. All the internal organs congested (Liver, Lungs, Kidneys, Spleen) Stomach empty. Bladder empty." (v) Pending investigation, P.W.6 Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 13.11.2006 under the Binny Bridge at Ethiraj Road and recorded the confession statement given by him voluntarily in the presence of witnesses and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P4. Pursuant to the confession statement, the accused produced the blood stained black pant M.O.5 and the same was recovered in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P5. All the material objects were sent to Forensic Department for chemical analysis and the chemical analysis report is marked as Ex.P12. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.S.Pannerselvam, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case. P.W.1 is the plastic goods vendor and he had no occasion to be present at the place and time of occurrence. Insofar as P.W.2 was concerned, he was working in the nearby shop. Both of them were unable to say under what circumstances, they happened to be standing or sitting in front of the Maternity hospital during night hours. The prosecution has not examined anyone of the witness from the Hospital. It would clearly indicate the fact that the prosecution had no evidence to speak the incident put forth by the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 are planted witnesses.