MOTTAI KUMAR ALIAS KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUMAR, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Secs.450 and 304(1), I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed before this Court.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: "(a) THE deceased Suresh was living in Subramania Udayar Street, Telugupalayam along with his wife P.W. 1 Jothi. P.W.6 Jayanthi is the sister of the deceased. She was residing in Chokkampudur separately, (b) THE appellant, Kumar was facing a theft case in Crime No. 157 of 1993 on the file of B-2 Coimbatore Police Station. Since he was absconding, non-bailable warrant was issued. In execution of the non-bailable warrant, the appellant Kumar was arrested on 2.6.1997 by Head Constable, P.W. 12 at the Ukkadam bus stand. P.W. 12 was able to arrest the appellant in the above case only on the basis of the information given by the deceased Suresh. After the appellant came out on bail in the above case, on coming to know that he was arrested on the information given by the deceased, the appellant got angry towards him. (c) On 26.7.1987, at about 8.30 p.m., he along with the second accused Govindan came to the house of the deceased. On noticing the deceased inside the house, the appellant (A-1) caught hold of his shirt and shouted at him that he was the person, who gave the information about his whereabouts to the police and so, he came for taking his life. So saying, the appellant took out M.O.1 knife from his waist and stabbed on the shoulder and the right hip thrice. When the deceased Suresh got up and tried to run away from the scene, Govindan (A-2), who was standing near the entrance, pushed him aside. THEreafter, both the appellant and Govindan (A-2) ran away from the scene. (d) This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 Jothi, the wife of P.W.2 Suresh, who was residing nearby and P.W.6 Jayanthi. On noticing the injuries on the body, P.W. 1 and others took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. At about 10.15 a.m., P.W.3 Natarajan admitted him and found three stab injuries on his body. THEn, P.W.3 sent intimation Ex.P-2 to the police. He issued accident register Ex.P-3. (e) At about 11 p.m., P.W. 14, the Head Constable attached to B-10 Police Station came to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P-19 from the deceased. THEreafter, the case was registered for the offences under Secs.452 and 324, I.P.C. P.W. 14 after registering the case, handed over the investigation to P.W. 15, Sub-Inspector of Police. (f) P.W. 15 came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-21 statement from the deceased. THEn, he recovered the blood stained clothes from the deceased. On 2.8.1997, he received an intimation that the deceased died through Ex.P-4 sent by P.W.4. P.W.1 6, the Inspector of Police altered the offence into one under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and took up further investigation. He conducted inquest. (g) In the meantime, both the accused surrendered before the Court. THE weapon was recovered and confession of the appellant (A-1) was obtained. THE body was sent for postmortem. (h) P.W.15 Doctor Natarajan attached to the Government Hospital conducted the post-mortem and found three injuries on the body and one other injury, which was due to the operation. He issued Ex.P-6, post-mortem certificate. (i) P.W.16. after investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offences under Secs.302 and 449 read with 34, I.P.C. (j) After trial, it was concluded that A-1 was guilty for the offences under Secs.450 and 304(1), I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively. This conviction and sentence is challenged before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the attack, the victim deceased was taken to the hospital without wasting any time in order to save the life of the deceased. Ex.P-2 is the intimation sent by the Doctor P.W.3 which would indicate that the deceased was brought by his wife P.W.1. Though the names of P.W.2 and P.W.6 are not mentioned in Ex.P-19 as eye witnesses, the deceased gave a statement to P.W. 14, Head Constable. In his statement to P.W.14 he mentioned that P.W.1 was the eye witness, when the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, out of the three eye witnesses, the evidence of P.W.1, the wife, would assume significance. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 both in chief and cross, there is nothing to indicate that P.W.1 speaks falsehood against the appellant.