MUTHU RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern these three appeals in Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.339, 400 and 421 of 2009. Criminal Appeal (MD) No.339 of 2009 has been brought-forth by Accused No.1; Criminal Appeal (MD) No.400 of 2009 has been brought-forth by Accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal (MD) No.421 of 2009 has been brought-forth by Accused No.3. These appeals challenge the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Division, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.27/2008 dated 20.10.2009 whereby these three appellants along with the other three accused ranked as Accused Nos.4 to 6, stood charged and tried for the following offences of law: Charge Nos. Accused Nos. Charge under Section 1 A.1 to A.6 120(b) IPC 2 A.1 to A.3 148 IPC 3 A.3 to A.5 147 IPC 4 A.1 to A.3 302 IPC 5 A.3 to A.5 149 and 34 IPC On trial, A.1 to A.3 were found guilty under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 148 of the IPC and to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,500, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. However, they were not found guilty of the other charges levelled against them and A.4 to A.6 were not found guilty for all the charges levelled against them and they were acquitted of all the charges.

(2.) The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: (i) PW.1 is the sister of the deceased Magarajan. PW.4 is another brother. PW.2 is the sister's son of the deceased. PW.1's mother was living in a house which was belonging to Nallamuthu Asari situated in Asarimar Street in Seevalaperi, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. The mother of PW.1 was not doing well. On coming to know, PW.1 went to the house of her mother at Asarimar Street at about 5.30 p.m, on 4.12.2005. After PW.1's arrival, when she was talking to her mother, the deceased Magarajan came to see his mother to enquire about her health. At that time, A.4 and A.5 came there and took the deceased stating that they had to talk to settle their dispute and A.1 and A.2 were waiting for them. At that time, PW.1 told the deceased not to go since they were on inimical terms but the deceased replied nothing untoward would happen and on saying so, he accompanied A.4 and A.5. PW.1 entertained suspicion and PW.1 also followed them. When they went outside the house, just in front of Sudalai Pandaram, A.1 immediately attacked the deceased Magarajan with Aruval. Immediately, PW.1 and the deceased made an attempt to run away but A.4 to A.6 restrained the deceased, taking this as advantage, A.2 attacked him on the neck. Then, he fell down. A.3 cut him repeatedly. This was also witnessed by PW.2 who was coming on his way and neighbours also looked at the occurrence. All the accused persons with weapons sped away from the place of occurrence. PW.1 and PW.2 went nearby and found the deceased Mahagarajan dead. (ii) PW.1 and PW.2 directly proceeded to the respondent Police Station and narrated the incident to the Sub-Inspector of Police PW.12, which was reduced to writing. Then, PW.1 signed in the complaint which was attested by Maharajan PW.2. On the strength of Ex.P.1 complaint, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.116/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 149 of the I.P.C.,. Ex.P.25 F.I.R was despatched to the Court. (iii) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., PW.13, Inspector of police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.26 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.27 in the presence of witnesses. The bloodstained earth MO.8 and sample earth MO.9 were recovered under the cover of Mahazar. He also conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report Ex.P.28. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.7. He gave a Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.19 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of decapitation of neck. Following the same, he recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of the Cr.P.C.,. (iv) Pending investigation, on 7.12.2005, Investigating Officer arrested A.2 to A.5. During the course of enquiry, A.2 to A.5 voluntarily came forward to give confessional statements and the same were recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the confession given by A.2 was marked as Ex.P.30. The admissible part of the confession given by A.3 was marked as Ex.P.32. The admissible part of the confession given by A.4 was marked as Ex.P.34. The admissible part of the confession given by A.5 was marked as Ex.P.36. Following the same, A.2 and A.3 produced each one aruval and they were recovered under the cover of Mahazars. The investigator came to know that A.1 and A.6 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate. He made a memo seeking police custody and it was ordered. During the course of enquiry, they voluntarily came forward to give confessional statement. The admissible part of the confession given by A.1 was marked as Ex.P.5. The admissible part of the confession given by A.6 was marked as Ex.P.6. (v) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also weapons used in the commission of offence were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.22 and Serologist Report Ex.P.23. (vi) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.

(3.) In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 36 Exhibits and 19 MOs. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of the accused. Neither witness was examined nor document was marked on the side of the defence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available on record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts insofar as A.1 to A.3 only on the charge of 148 and also 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and awarded punishment as referred to above and acquitted them in respect of other charges. Insofar as A.4 to A.6 are concerned, they were all acquitted of all the charges and hence, the appeals at the instance of the appellants.