MATHIAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATHIAYAN the appellant herein was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for having caused injury on his father-in-law ariya Gounder, which resulted in his death. This appeal is filed challenging the same.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to the conviction are as follows: a) THE accused Mathiayan married one Devaki, the daughter of the deceased Ariya Gounder. It was 13 years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of their wedlock, three children were born. THE deceased Ariya Gounder did not have any male issue. THErefore, he executed a settlement deed in respect of his land property in the name of his daughter Devaki. b) Two years prior to the date of occurrence, Devaki, the daughter of the deceased died. Despite the fact that there were three children and in spite of the objection raised by the deceased father-in-law, the accused chose to re-marry one Deivanai. Since he got married again, the deceased Ariya gounder refused to hand over the possession of the property to the accused, which was originally executed in favour of his wife, Devaki. So, with reference to this, a civil suit was filed by the deceased against the accused and ultimately, the deceased got a decree in his favour. In the panchayat held, it was directed that the accused should not enter into the land belonging to the deceased. c) In the meantime, the accused got dejected over the attitude of the deceased in not handing over the possession of the land, which was originally handed over to his wife. He also felt that his children were not properly looked after by his second wife. So, he felt aggrieved that for all these sufferings, the deceased was responsible. d) THE occurrence had taken place on 14. 07. 1989 at about 11. 00 p. m. when the deceased was laying down in a cot in his field, the accused came to the field of the deceased with M. O. 1-Koduval and gave cuts on the right and left leg of the deceased. THE deceased cried aloud. Upon hearing the sound, the witnesses P. W. 2 and P. W. 3, the neighbours came to the scene. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene. e) Since the deceased was lying with cut injuries, he was taken to the Government Hospital , Dharmapuri immediately, where P. W. 9, the Doctor gave treatment to the deceased and issued accident Register, Ex. P-8. A message was then sent to the Out Post police station. f) On receipt of the same, P. W. 8, the Head Constable proceeded to the Hospital and recorded Ex. P-6, the statement from the deceased at 2. 00 p. m. , which was attested by P. W. 9 and P. W. 5. P. W. 12, the Head Constable attached to Papparapatti Police Station at the relevant time, received Ex. P-8 and on the basis of that, he registered a case for an offence under Section 307 ipc at 3. 00 a. m in Crime No. 223 of 1989. g) On 15. 07. 1989 at 3. 45 a. m. , the deceased died. P. W. 10, the Doctor sent Death intimation, Ex. P-10 to the police station. P. W. 11, the inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex. P-10, altered Section 307 IPC into section 302 IPC. h) In the meantime, the accused went to the Village administrative Officer, P. W. 1 and gave an Extra Judicial Confession at 5. 45 a. m, which was reduced into writing by P. W. 1, marked as Ex. P-1. He then took the accused and handed him over to the police along with the Koduval-M. O. 1 and ex. P-1, the statement. THE complaint Ex. P-2 was thereafter given by P. W. 1. i) THEn, P. W. 13, the Inspector of Police went to the scene and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and then, he went to the Dharmapuri government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 11. 00 a. m and 2. 00 p. m on 15. 07. 89. j) P. W. 11, the Doctor conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 15. 07. 1989 at 3. 00 p. m. He found two injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 2. THE postmortem certificate is Ex. P-12. k) THE material objects were sent for chemical analysis. After concluding the investigation, P. W. 13 filed the final report against the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. l) During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to P. W. 13 were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-20 were marked and m. Os. 1 to 5 were produced. m) THE accused in the questioning under Section 313 cr. P. C. denied his complicity in the crime in question. n) THE trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution and found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted him there under. Hence this appeal.

(3.) KEEPING in mind the above principles, we have to analyse the evidence available on record. There are three pieces of evidence available in this case. 1) The oral Dying Declaration given by the deceased to the witnesses P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5, while the deceased was taken to the Hospital. 2) The Dying Declaration given by the deceased to P. W. 8, the Head Constable at about 2. 00 a. m on 15. 07. 1989, attested by P. W. 9, the doctor and P. W. 5. 3. The Extra Judicial Confession Ex. P-1, given by the accused to P. W. 1 at about 5. 45 a. m on 15. 07. 1989.