BALAJI Vs. VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the P.W. 1 in S.C. No. 391 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Chengalpattu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Court below whereby the accused/respondents 1 and 2 herein were acquitted of the charges. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Amudha was given in marriage to the first accused. The second accused is the brother of the first accused. The revision petitioner is the brother of the deceased Amudha. P.W. 5 is the daughter of the deceased and A-1. P.W. 6 is the mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the first accused ill-treated the deceased Amudha during his matrimonial life and subjected her to harassment and mental cruelty on demand of dowry. The first accused used to beat her often and in fact the deceased also complained it to the revision petitioner. The deceased also gave several complaints against her husband, the first accused complaining ill-treatment and the same were also enquired into by the respondent police. On 14.11.2003 at about 12 hours, in Periapalayam Main Road, near Pakkam public well, when the deceased Amudha was proceeding on the road with the revision petitioner, the accused came there with an Aruval with an intention to cause her death and cut her with the Aruval on her stomach, chest, neck, left wrist, back and other parts of her body, with the result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. During the course of the transaction, A-2, being the brother of A-1 voluntarily abated A-1 to commit the murder of the deceased and thereby, A-1 and A-2 committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 109 of IPC. On receipt of the final report, the case was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 2 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruvallur. Since the offence is triable by the Court of sessions, the entire records were transmitted to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and it was taken on file as S.C. No. 391 of 2005.

(2.) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to 22, marked Exhibits P1 to P17, besides M.Os. 1 to 7. The trial Court disbelieved the complaint Exhibit P-1 given by the revision petitioner on the ground that even before the complaint could be lodged, the police personnel have visited the scene of occurrence and that the first information report must have been prepared after due deliberation and consultation. The Court below also found that there was a delay in registration of the complaint and therefore, the case put forth by the prosecution cannot be believed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that P.W. 1, 5 and 6 were the eye witnesses and their evidence was slightly brushed aside by the Court below without any valid reason. The Court below also failed to see that previously the deceased gave complaint against her husband, A-1 complaining that he raped his own daughter, P.W. 5 and this complaint had created enemity between the couple. Therefore, due to such enemity, the accused had motivatedly committed the murder of the deceased. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by her in the vital parts of her body, which is evident from the postmortem report, Exhibit P-9. There are also enough evidence available to connect the accused to the offence and therefore, the Court below ought not to have acquitted the accused.