PACHAIMUTHU Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Salem for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., which revealed the fact that he was the cause for the death of one Ravi @ Ravichandran. The learned trial Judge concluding that the accused had committed an offence under Section 302 I.P.C, convicted and sentenced him, to undergo life imprisonment, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the conviction, in brief:- The deceased by name, Ravi @ Ravi Chandran was working as a lorry driver, in which Syed Kader (P.W.2) was working as a cleaner. On 28.4.1992, the deceased and P.W.2 had been to Perumpallam, in order to load sugarcane. On the way, the accused also got into the lorry and accompanied by him, all the three went to the house of the deceased, where they have met his father by name Ramasamy (P.W.4.). After taking meals, they went to Perumpallam and parked the lorry near Kandasamy Kounder Sugarcane Field, abutting the Bavani to Mettur Main Road. The cleaner of the lorry (P.W.2) because of tiredness, took bed in the lorry itself and slept. The deceased and the accused took rest on the eastern side of the road and using M.O.1 as bed, the deceased was sleeping. At that time, Thiru Arjunan (P.W.1), who is a sugarcane cutter, came there, noticed all the above said three, who were waiting to load sugarcane. After sometime, P.W.1 had been to Ponni Sugar Mill where some receipts were handed over to him, to be entrusted to the lorry driver Ravi @ Ravi Chandran. On return, P.W.1 went to the place, where the driver and the accused were taking rest and informed about the receipts, for which the deceased requested him to leave the receipts in the lorry. Acceding to the request, it seems P.W.1 placed the receipts in the lorry cabin. At that time also, he had noticed the deceased as well as the accused, nearby, together. Tmt. Palaniammal (P.W.3) had seen the accused, cleaner and the lorry driver while chatting. Later on, when she had gone to fetch water, she noticed the body of the driver near the road. On her information, people gathered including P.W.1. P.W.1, coming to the scene of crime had noticed, an injury over the neck of the driver, as well as a beer bottle near him (M.O.2). But, he has not noticed another person, whom he had seen already viz., the accused. After informing this incident, P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1 complaint, with P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police Station, at about 9.00 a.m., who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.125/95 under Section 302 I.P.C. for which he submitted the printed F.I.R., Ex.P.14. On information, the Inspector of Police (P.W.10), took the case for investigation, reached the scene of crime on 29.4.2002 at 6.00 a.m. In the presence of P.W.5 and another witness, he prepared Ex.P.2, mahazar as well as a sketch-Ex.P.15. On the body of the Ravi @ Ravi Chandran, in the presence of panchayatdar, P.W.10 conducted an inquest, for which he prepared Ex.P.16. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, through police constable, with requisition. On the request of the Inspector of Police, under Ex.P.8 on 29.4.1992 at about 3.00 p.m., Dr. P. Ramamurthy (P.W.6) conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, on identification by the police. He had noticed only one external injury viz., an oval shape injury measuring 7 X 4 cm on the right side of the lower part of neck, exposing muscles. By further probing, he noticed the wound that leads behind the right sterno cavicular joint into the arch of aorta. On the basis of the postmortem, the doctor opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injury to the vital vestel-aorta, 22-26 hours prior to autopsy. The accused realising the folly committed by him, appears to have surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.5), on 5.5.92 at about 10.00 a.m. By surrendering, the accused also confessed about his guilty, by giving a confession, as well as disclosing the whereabouts of the weapon, used for murdering the accused. The dutiful Village Administrative Officer, promptly took the accused and handed over him to the Sub Inspector of Police, (P.W.9) along with the confession statement (Ex.P4) as well as a special report (Ex.P.5). The Sub Inspector of Police examined the accused in the presence of the witnesses. The accused gave a confession, voluntarily, and in pursuance of the confession, M.O.11 was recovered under the cover of mahazar P.W.7. In addition, he has also handed over his pant (M.O.9) and shirt (M.O.10), which were recovered under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P.6. The investigation was further conducted by the Inspector of Police, P.W.10, who had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, then and there. After P.W.10, another Sub Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.11 took the case for further investigation and sent some of the material objects, for chemical analysis through court. The investigation revealed, that the accused alone should have committed the murder of Ravi @ Ravi Chandran and therefore, a final report was filed, then directing the accused to face the trial under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge following the mandate of Cr.P.C. tried the accused, for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution, in order to buttress the charge and to make out a case, beyond all reasonable doubt, as required under law, marched in 11 witnesses, seeking aid from 16 documents, as well as further strength from 13 material objects. Scanning of the above materials and its assessment coupled with the law, as per the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, brought to surface, the guilt of the accused under Section 302, culminating a conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. directing the accused to under go life imprisonment. The learned trial Judge, though there was no eyewitness to prove the guilt of the accused, based his conviction purely on the circumstantial evidence, which may not have the tendency, to divert the real fact generally. It is the conclusion of the trial Judge, that the accused and the deceased were seen together lastly, before the murder of the deceased and thereafter, the accused absconded. The second circumstance relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is, the absconding of the accused for one week from the date of incident. The third circumstance, relied on by the learned trial Judge is the recovery of M.O.11, on the basis of the confession given by the accused, though he disbelieved the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused, before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.5). The 4th circumstance prompted the learned trial Judge to base his conviction is that in the dress worn by the accused, which was handed over by him, contained 'A' Group blood as that of the deceased for which, there is no explanation by the accused. On the above said circumstances, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, ignoring the lapses committed by the investigating officer, though severely commented upon, slapped the conviction as aforementioned, which is sought to be assailed before us, in this criminal appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gopinath and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.