K CHINNAPPAN ALIAS MEENATCHI SUNDARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.8 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.341, 324 (2 counts) and 302 (2 counts) of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 of IPC (2 counts), one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.324 of IPC (2 counts) and one month Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.341 of IPC, and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is a native of Poonthottam within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. On 21.10.2006, he went to his uncle's house, and at about 7.00 P.M. he took Gunachithra, the first deceased (D1) along with her 1 - year old child to the nearby temple, and when they were coming back, the appellant/accused intercepted and demanded the hand-loan money. At that time he also dragged her hand and outraged her modesty, and she pushed him down. It was actually witnessed by Pws.1 to 3. At that time, immediately the accused got into the house, took M.O.1, aruval, and cut her on different parts of the body. On seeing this, the second deceased (D2) Lalitha, the mother of D1, intervened. Immediately he attacked her indiscriminately. In that process, P.W.1 also intervened to save them, but he also sustained injuries. The child also sustained injuries in that transaction. Then he fled away from the place of occurrence when the neighbours gathered, along with the weapon of crime. They found both D1 and D2 dead. (b) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P22, the complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by the Sub Inspector of Police one Veeramuthu in Crime No.117 of 2006 under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P21 was despatched to the Court. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P24, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P23. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Gunachithra D1 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P25. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of Lalitha D2 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P26. Thereafter, both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. (d) P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Jeyankondam, on receipt of the requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gunachithra and has given his opinion in Ex.P14, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ namely brain. (e) The same Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lalitha and gave his opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P15, that she died out of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ namely brain. (f) P.W.1 was examined by the same Doctor, and he has given the accident register copy, Ex.P16. The child was given treatment by P.W.14, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, and he gave the accident register copy, Ex.P19. (g) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 22.10.2006, and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P27, following which he produced bloodstained shirt and also an aruval marked as Exs.P11 and P1 respectively. They were recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the material objects produced by the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, were sent for analysis which brought forth Ex.P31, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P32, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that as far as the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 relied upon by the prosecution was concerned, the same should have been subjected to careful scrutiny since they were closely related to each other, and there were discrepancies on the material particulars that according to P.W.2, it was P.W.3 who accompanied him at the time of the occurrence that according to P.W.3, only after hearing the distressing cry, he came out of the house and thus it would be quite clear that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.