KARUPPIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused has preferred the above appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Sessions Case No.4 of 1993, holding him guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Krishnan at about 1.30 p.m. on 17.5.1992 at the village called Punnapatti and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the deceased Krishnan, his wife Backiam P.W.1 and one Azhagan P.W.4 were employed under a land owner in the village called Punnapatti. The said land is situated, adjoining the river known as Thirumanimutham. In view of that location, the said land owner by name Balasubramani was particular that the sand is not removed in the said river. On the date of occurrence, the deceased Krishnan and his wife P.W.1 were doing some farm work in the land of the said Balasubramani. At about 1.30 p.m., a lorry came with some workers for the purpose of taking sand from the river, just close to the land where they were working. As directed by the land owner, the deceased Krishnan told them not to remove the sand and prevented them. The cleaner of the lorry (the accused) questioned the authority of the deceased in asking them not to remove the sand and in the meantime, the other workers, who came in the lorry started removing the sand. The deceased questioned the accused as to why he was shouting and talking in that manner. The accused then took M.O.1 stone lying on the floor and threw it on the chest of the deceased and ran away. The workers, who came in the lorry also left. The deceased, who sustained the injury because of the stone throw, fell down. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.4, a co-worker of the deceased went near and found the deceased dead. Thereafter, both of them proceeded to the house of the land owner Balasubramani, and after informing him, went to Natham police station, where P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1. In the said complaint, P.W.4 has also signed. The complaint given by P.W.1 was received by the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.9, who registered Cr.No.176 of 1992 and prepared Express F.I.R. Ex.P-6. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector despatched the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate and also informed his superiors. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, who received the information by wireless went to the police station and after receiving a copy of the F.I.R. proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at about 4.30 p.m. The Inspector prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar and Ex.P-7 sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and another. M.Os.1 and 2 stones that were found at the scene of occurrence were seized under Ex.P-5. He conducted inquest between 5.30 and 9.30 p.m., in the presence of panchayatdars, viz., Raman Chettiar, Backiam P.W.1, Ramasamy, Rathinam, Ponnan and others, and Ex.P-8 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1, 2, 4 and 7, Balasubramanian, Mayazhagan and others. Thereafter, the body was sent through a constable to the Government Hospital along with a requisition Ex.P-2 for the purpose of conducting post mortem. The Doctor P.W.6 at the Government Hospital, Dindigul, on receipt of the requisition conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased on 18.5.1992 at about 12.55 p.m. Ex.P-3 in the post mortem certificate. In the said certificate, the Doctor has noted the following:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, of course, would endeavour to convince this Court to reject the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2. As far as P.W.1 is concerned, it is submitted that her conduct in proceeding to the police station, leaving the deceased alone at the scene of occurrence is quite improbable. Secondly, it is contended that the deceased sustained the injury when ran and fell down. Finally, it is suggested that P.W.1 was not aware as to who all came in the lorry and only by sheer guess, she had laid the complaint. We do not find any substance in any of these submissions, P.W.1 immediately after the deceased falling down, went near and after lifting him, realised that the deceased had already died and only thereafter, she left the deceased there and went to the police station. It is not as if that when she left the scene of occurrence, the deceased was alive and that she failed to give some first aid or take steps to take him to the hospital. As far as the second submission that the deceased ran and fell down and only in that process, he sustained the injuries, the same cannot be accepted because there was no reason for the deceased to run. No materials have been placed and not even a suggestion has been made to clarify that factual aspect. Thirdly, the contention that P.W.1 gave complaint only out of guesswork cannot be accepted since it has not been substantiated.