ANTONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, dated 02.12.2008, made in S.C.No.87 of 2007, whereby the appellant/sole accused, who stood charged under Section 302 IPC, on trial, was found guilty under the charge of murder, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a)The deceased in this case by name Geetha was given in marriage to one Bishmark and they got three children and due to some strained relationship, she was living with her children separately. During that course, she developed illicit intimacy with the appellant/accused and was living with him. (b)On 04.09.2002, when P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house, at about 3.30 a.m. the deceased and the appellant/accused were sitting outside and chatting with each other and at that time there arose a quarrel between them and the deceased raised a distressing cry stating "leave me, don't do anything" and on hearing the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 woke up, opened the window and found that the appellant/accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her ablaze. Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 raised alarm. P.W.5 found the accused/appellant running from the place of occurrence. P.W.3, a neighbour, on hearing the cry, came there and opened the doors and P.Ws.1 and 2 came out. The victim narrated to them that it was the appellant/accused who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Immediately she was taken to the Hospital. (c)P.W.7, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi, admitted the victim at 3.50 a.m. on 04.09.2002 and gave treatment to her and the Accident Register Copy given by him is marked as Ex.P-4. Ex.P-5 is the intimation given to the police and Ex.P-6 is the intimation given to the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the victim. (d)P.W.15, the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, on receipt of intimation, came to the hospital and after getting certificate from P.W.8, the duty doctor, that she was in a fit state of mind to give declaration, recorded the dying declaration. The said certificate is marked as Ex.P-7 and the Dying Declaration is marked as Ex.P-17. (e)On receipt of intimation from the Hospital at about 4.15 a.m. on 04.09.2002, P.W.11, the Head Constable attached to the respondent Police Station, proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the victim at 5.30 a.m., which is marked as Ex.P-1, and on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.668/2002 under Section 307 IPC and Ex.P-9, the First Information Report, was despatched to the court and copies of Ex.P-9 were sent to the higher police officers for further action. (f)P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of Ex.P-9 FIR at 6.45 a.m. on 04.09.2002, took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of P.W.6 and another and prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar. He also drew Ex.P-18, the rough sketch. He recovered M.O.1 - Cement mortar with kerosene, M.O.2 - sample cement mortar, M.O.3 - burnt cloth - red and green colour, M.O.4 - burnt cloth - green colour, M.O.5 - 5 litre white plastic can with kerosene smell and M.O.6 - match box from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P-3 Mahazar attested by P.W.6 and another. On receipt Ex.P-10, the death intimation, from P.W.12, the Doctor, that the victim died at 9.00 a.m., P.W.16 altered the case into under Section 302 IPC and despatched Ex.P-19, the amended FIR, to the Court. Thereafter, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-20, the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem through P.W.10, the Head Constable, with Ex.P-12, Requisition. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (g)P.W.13,the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, on receipt of Ex.P-12 Intimation from the Inspector of Police, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 2.30 p.m. on 04.09.2002 and on completion of postmortem, P.W.13 gave Ex.P-11, the Postmortem Certificate, opining that the deceased died of superficial burns of 95% and its complication. After postmortem, P.W.10, the Head Constable, recovered M.O.7 - a piece of green colour saree and M.O.8 - Nighty from the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. (h)Pending investigation, on 10.09.2002, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took the accused, who surrendered before the Court and sent to judicial custody, into police custody and when enquired in the presence of witnesses, the accused came forward to give a voluntary confessional statement and P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, recorded the same. Ex.P-21 is the admissible part of the confessional statement of the accused, pursuant to which the accused took and produced M.O.9 - Lungi with kerosene smell and the same was recovered under Ex.P-22, the Mahazar. Thereafter, the accused was again sent to judicial custody. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He gave Ex.P-13 Requisition to the Court for sending the material objects recovered in this case for chemical analysis and accordingly they were sent to Forensic Lab under Ex.P-14, the letter of court, which resulted in two documents Ex.P-15, the Serologist's Report and M.O.16, the Chemical Examiner's Report. On completion of investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report against the accused on 12.10.2002.

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.87/2007 and necessary charge was framed. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-22 and produced M.Os.1 to 9. 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, he flatly denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charge against appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty, convicted him thereunder and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal has been brought forth by the accused.