MANI Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANI, the Appellant /Accused 1 and his son Pandi - Accused 2, were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (on two counts) and 201 I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts leading to conviction, are as follows: (a) THE deceased No. I Karuppasamy married one Kaliammal, who did not have any issue. THErefore, he divorced her and gave a piece of land to her as compensation as per the decision of the Panchayat. THEreafter, deceased No. I married one Lakshmi, deceased No.II. Out of the wedlock, a son Karuppasamy, P.W.1 and a daughter Lakshmi were born. Since deceased No. 1 had issue, he insisted his divorced wife to return the piece of land which he had given to her at the time of divorce. But the said Kaliammal was not inclined to hand over the land to him and told deceased No.I that she would give the land to her sister's son Pandi / accused 2. Due to this, there was misunderstanding between them and deceased No. 1 Karuppasamy and his wife Lakshmi - deceased No. 2, said to have murdered Kaliammal. In respect of this incident, a case was registered against both the deceased. Even though they were tried for the offence of murder, ultimately they were acquitted. After their release, deceased No.I took over possession of the land on the strength of a forged document alleged to have been executed by the said Kaliammal before her death. In this respect, a civil suit was pending between deceased No. 1 and the accused. Since the disputed land was taken away by deceased No. 1, accused -1 Mani, father of A-2 Pandi developed strong enmity against the deceased. THEre were frequent quarrel between the parties. (b) THE fateful occurrence took place on 22.1.1995 . Deceased No. 1, after finishing his field work, was sitting near the cattle shed situate at the disputed land and was taking food. Deceased No.II Lakshmi was watering the field. P.W.1 Karuppasamy, son of the deceased, was grazing the cattle. Suddenly, A-1 Mani and A-2 Pandi, armed with aruval, came to the scene of occurrence and noticing the accused coming with weapons, deceased No. 1 got up and ran towards north, apprehending that he would be murdered by them. However, both the accused chased him; caught him and cut him with aruval repeatedly. (c) On seeing the incident, deceased No. 2 ran towards the deceased I with a kalaikottu. Both the accused pushed deceased No. 2 on the floor and gave indiscriminate cut on her neck with aruval. Both of them died on the spot. THEn the accused severed the neck of deceased No. 1 and took away the head and went towards the southern side. After throwing the head on the way to Alavanthankulam Village, they ran away from the scene with the aruvals. (d) This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 Karuppasamy, son of the deceased and also by one Kattamari, P. W. 3, who is the neighbouring land owner and one Pechimuthu, the brother of the deceased No. 2 Lakshmi. P.W.1 rushed to the house of his grandfather Shanmugavel THEvar and informed him about the incident. Pechimuthu also came there and informed the same to P.W.2. After sending Pechimuthu to the Police Station to give a complaint, P.W.2 along with P.W. 1 and other villagers, came to the scene of occurrence. Pechimuthu went to Manoor Police Station and gave a report to P.W. 11.Ex.P.16 is the complaint and Ex.P.17 is the F.I.R. P.W. 11 Sub Inspector of Police registered the same under Section 302 I.P.C. against both the accused. Exhibit P-17 is the F.I.R. (e) P.W. 12 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, went to the scene of occurrence at 12.00 hours on 22/23.1.1995. He prepared Ex.P.1 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-18 rough sketch. He conducted an inquest on the dead body of deceased No. 1 from 02.00 a.m. to 04.00 a.m. Ex.P-19 is the he inquest report. He also conducted an inquest on the dead body of the deceased 2 from 4.00 to 5.30 a.m. Ex.P-20 is t he inquest report . During the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3 and Pechimuthu, the author of the F.I.R. He recovered the blood stained earth and blood stained cloths of the deceased. (f) Next day early morning, P.W.12 Inspector of Police went in search of the head, which was severed from the body of the deceased and ultimately, found the head near Keelaipillayarkulam"- Alavanthankulam cart track. He prepared another observation mahazar Ex.P-3 and drew Ex.P-21 rough sketch. At the place where the head was found lying, a separate inquest report was prepared under Ex.P-22. THEreafter the head was taken back to the place where the body was found. Ex. P-23 inquest report has also been prepared. THEn he made arrangements to send the bodies for postmorterm. (g) P.W. 6, Doctor on 23.1.1995 conducted post-mortem and found on alignment of the head to the trunk, that it belonged to one and the same person. He found several injuries on the body of deceased No.1.THEn he issued Ex.P-9 post-mortem certificate giving an opinion that deceased would appear to have died of heavy cut injuries to the region of the neck. (h) At about 12.50 p.m., P.W.6 Dr. Paramasivam conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased No.2 and found cut injuries on the neck and issued Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate giving an opinion that deceased No. 2 would appear to have died of heavy cut injuries to the region of the neck. (i) During the course of investigation, P.W.12 Inspector of Police came to know that the accused surrendered before the Court at Srivaikundam, the very next day, i.e. on 24.1.1995. Even though P.W.12 filed an application for getting police custody before the Court, the same was dismissed. THEn he continued the investigation and arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination. Ultimately, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. against the accused. (j) THE trial Court, however, framed charges against both the accused for the offences under Sections 302 (on two counts ) and 201 I.P.C. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P-23 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 5 were marked. (k) THE defence of the accused, while they were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is one of total denial. As a matter of fact, they have stated that they have no enmity at all with the deceased. (l) On a consideration of the materials available on record, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby convicted both the accused for the offences under Sections 302 (on two counts) and 201 I.P.C. and each of the accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- on each counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each counts for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and and each of them were also sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprionment for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. THE Sessions Court ordered the sentences imposed on the accused to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused alone has filed the present appeal.

(3.) AS correctly pointed out by Mr. Malarvannan, Amicus Curiae, the only evidence available in this case is the deposition of P.W.1. Unfortunately, Pechimuthu - the author of the F.I.R., one of the eye witnesses and Kattamari, another eye-witness, have not been examined. Resultantly, the court would not be able to act upon Ex. P-16 complaint and Ex. P-17 F.I.R. Similarly, the court is unable to use the evidence of P.W.3 Kattamari, one of the eye-witnesses, as he did not support the prosecution case and consequently he was treated hostile. Therefore, the only eye-witness who is available before the Court is P.W.1.