A VIJAYASANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Vijayasankar, the appellant herein, on being aggrieved by the judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows: a) THE deceased Rajendran and P. W. 1 Manimegalai got married six years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of the wedlock, two children were born to them. THE father of the deceased is one Kandasamy. Vijayasankar, the accused is the son of one Arumugam, who is the younger brother of the said Kandasamy. THE accused, a young man, was studying in the school. All are residing in the same village by name Kaveti Ranganpalayam. P. W. 1 Manimegalai and her husband deceased Rajendran were engaged in making rope for coconut fibre. THE deceased Rajendran and P. W. 1 borrowed Rs. 1000/- as loan from the accused. A promissory note was executed by the deceased in favour of the accused. b) After some time, the accused demanded for repayment of the loan. THE deceased was not able to repay the loan in time. For demanding the loan amount, the accused used to visit the house of P. W. 1 frequently in the absence of her husband. When P. W. 1 and the deceased were not able to repay the loan, the accused began to pressurise P. W. 1 to become his concubine so that he would not demand for the repayment of the loan. Submitting to the pressure, p. W. 1, in course of time, developed illicit intimacy with the accused. This illegal affair continued for some time. Later, the deceased came to know about their illicit intimacy. He beat P. W. 1 and sent her to her parents'house. THE accused used to visit her parents'house also and continue to have relationship. Due to the continued illicit intimacy, a male child was born to P. W. 1 and the accused. Without knowing the same, the brother of P. W. 1 wanted the deceased to compromise the matter and managed to convince the deceased to allow her to join with him. Accordingly, P. W. 1 along with the child joined her husband. c) Even thereafter, the accused used to visit the house of P. W. 1 in the absence of the deceased Rajendran. Having got angered by the act of the accused, the deceased approached village panchayatdars to convene a panchayat. Accordingly, P. W. 3, one of the panchayatdars convened the panchayat and summoned both the accused and P. W. 1. When they were enquired in the presence of the villagers, both the accused and p. W. 1 confessed that they had illicit intimacy and due to that, the new born child was born to them. Finally, the Panchayatdars decided that the deceased should take care of his two other children born to him and the accused should take the third child and P. W. 1 with him and also should pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the deceased. However, at the end of the panchayat, the mother of the accused did not agree for the Panchayatadars'decision and left the panchayat abruptly by taking the accused along with her. d) Five days later, the brother of the accused along with his men came to the house of P. W. 1 and attacked P. W. 1 by throwing stones on her. With reference to this, a case was registered. She was taken to the Omalur Hospital by the deceased. She was there for about 17 days taking treatment. e) One day prior to the Pongal, i. e. on 15. 1. 1994, P. W. 1 manimegalai was sitting in the house and grinding out the flour. THE deceased also was inside the house. At that point of time, the accused came to the house of the deceased and sitting on the floor, engaged in the conversation with p. W. 1. For taking water, a common motor was used by all including the accused and deceased families. THE said common motor was under repair. When P. W. 1 asked the accused as to why repairing work was not done, the accused stated that each family has to pay Rs. 300/- for doing the repair work and it will take one or two days. On hearing those words, the deceased Rajendran found fault with the accused and shouted at him as to why he was asking Rs. 300/- for a common motor. P. W. 1 asked the deceased as to why he is scolding the accused when he had stated that he would repair the motor within a day or two. This conduct of p. W. 1 in support of the accused, irked the deceased who retaliated by asking as to why she is supporting the accused. THEn, he took a sugarcan e and beat her three times. THEn, the deceased left the house. f) Few minutes later, the accused came near to P. W. 1 and told her that she was beaten by the deceased in his very presence and therefore, he would finish off his life. So saying, he left the place. g) After finishing the work, P. W. 1 slept inside the house along with her children. THE deceased Rajendran slept in front of his house in a coir cot. It was at about 12. 00 midnight. On hearing some murmuring noise from outside, P. W. 1 woke up and came out of the house and to her shock and surprise , she saw the accused standing near the head of the deceased armed with a crow bar. P. W. 1 began to shout. THE accused threatened p. W. 1 by saying that he has already finished the deceased by beating him and if she cries, she would also be beaten. He further asked P. W. 1 to lift the deceased Rajendran in order to drop him into a well. P. W. 1 objected to the same. THEn, the accused P. W. 1 not to divulge about the incident to anybody and asked for a promise under threat. She promised for the same out of fear. THEn, the accused left the crowbar at the scene and went away. h) THEreafter, P. W. 1 informed the neighbours P. W. 6 and others. THEy applied some oil on the head of the deceased and bandaged the injury and information was sent to P. W. 1's father-in-law and mother-in-law. Since it was mid night and they had no money, they decided to take the victim, the injured to hospital in the morning. Accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Omalur Government Hospital next day morning by father-in-law Kandasamy, P. W. 1 and others. i) P. W. 7, who was the duty Doctor at Omalur Hospital, admitted the injured on 16. 1. 1994 at about 2. 00 p. m. as an in-patient and gave first aid treatment. THE Doctor suggested that the deceased could be taken to Government Hospital , Salem. THE persons accompanied did not accept to do so as they did not have sufficient money. P. W. 7 issued Ex. P7 wound certificate. He also sent intimation Ex. P. 8 about the admission of the victim. At 3. 40 p. m. , the deceased died. THEreafter, the Doctor P. W. 7 sent death intimation Ex. P. 9 to the Omalur Police Station. j) On receipt of the death information, one Mariappan attached to the Omalur Police Station went to the hospital and recorded Ex. P. 1, the complaint from P. W. 1 at 5. 00 p. m. THEn, the concerned jurisdiction Police constable P. W. 11 of Tharamangalam Police Station received the death intimation ex. P9 at about 7. 00 p. m. on 16. 1. 1994. He registered a case for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sent the report to the Inspector of Police. k) P. W. 12, the Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence. THEn, he prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch. He recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth, bloodstained cot and also crowbar m. O. 1 under mahazar in the presence of P. W. 4. On 17. 1. 1994, P. W. 12 held inquest and examined P. Ws. 1 , 2 and 4. THEn, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. l) P. W. 8 Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex. P. 11 post-mortem certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased Rajendran would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. m) On 20. 1. 1994 at 5. 00 p. m. , P. W. 12 arrested the accused and on the basis of his confession, he recovered Ex. P. 2, photo of the accused and P. W. 1 and Ex. P. 22 promissory note executed by the deceased in favour of the accused. THEn, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, P. W. 12 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. n) On the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined, 22 exhibits were filed and 7 material objects were marked. o) When the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating materials under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. No evidence was adduced on his side. p) Having analysed the materials available on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) AT the outset, it shall be stated that P. W. 1 had admitted that she came out of the house on hearing the murmuring sound of his husband who was taking bed outside of the house and saw the accused standing near the head of the deceased with a crowbar. As such, she did not come forward to tell that she saw the accused beating the deceased. If P. W. 1 wanted to falsely implicate the accused, there is no difficulty for her to tell that she has witnessed the very occurrence itself. Therefore, merely because she has not deposed anything with reference to the beating the deceased by the accused, we cannot straightaway reject her evidence. If her evidence relating to the motive and the subsequent conduct of the accused as spoken to by P. W. 1 is found to be reliable on the strength of the other corroborating materials, it can be safely concluded that the accused alone caused the injury on the head of the deceased, which resulted in his death.