NAEEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the judgment by recording a finding of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of Sessions, i. e. , II additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, the sole accused, in a case of murder, has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:- (a) P. W. 2 is the husband of P. W. 3. They were living with their eight months old child, by name, Ayesha Begum. P. W. 5 and the appellant/accused are the brothers of P. W. 2 and P. W. 1 is their sister. All were living under the same roof situate in Door No. 53, Thiruvengadasamy Street, pulianthope, within the Pulianthope police limits. On the day of occurrence, viz. , 5. 2. 99, at the morning hours, P. Ws. 2 and 3 went to the market leaving the eight months child in the house. At that time, the appellant/accused and P. W. 1 were present. The appellant/accused asked P. W. 1 to fetch tiffin for him and thus, P. W. 1 went outside and returned after ten minutes. During that interval, the appellant/accused poured kerosene on the eight months old child and set fire. When P. W. 1 came back, she found the appellant/accused just coming out of the house at the step door. The appellant/accused went out silently. P. W. 1 went inside the house and found the child with burn injuries. When P. Ws. 2 and 3 were returning from the market, they found the appellant/accused coming in the opposite direction. He told them "you did not give me money, you go to the house and see the fate of the child" and went away. In the meanwhile, p. W. 1 took the child to the Medical College Hospital , where the child was admitted for treatment. The child succumbed to the burn injuries at about 1. 50 p. m. Ex. P. 5 is a copy of the accident register, wherein it was stated that the child died out of the stove burst. An intimation was given to the Pulianthope police station by the ward doctor. P. W. 13, sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information, went to the hospital and obtained a complaint from P. W. 1. The signature of P. W. 1 in the complaint is marked as Ex. P. 1. On the strength of the compalint, the police officer, P. W. 13, registered a case in Crime No. 232 of 1999 under Section 302 I. P. C. Ex. P. 14, f. I. R. was despatched to Court. (b) On receipt of a copy of the F. I. R. , P. W. 14, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He received the complaint from P. W. 13, which is marked as Ex. P. 15 in the case. He then proceeded to the hospital, conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars on the dead body of the child and prepared Ex. P. 16, report. Following the same, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P. 3 and a sketch, Ex. P. 19 and also recovered under Ex. P. 11 mahazar, M. O. 1-stove, M. O. 2-match box and M. O. 3, partly burnt cloth piece. He gave a requisition to the doctor for conduct of the autopsy on the dead body of the child, Ayesha Begum. (c) On receipt of the requisition, P. W. 10, Dr. N. A. Govardhan, civil Surgeon and Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical college, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the child Ayesha Begum and found the following burn injuries:- "epidermis and Dermoepidermal Burns seen on the face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper limbs fully front of both thighs, sides of the trunk and outer aspect of right thigh. " The doctor has issued Ex. P. 10, the post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to burns. (d) During investigation, the accused was arrested on 6. 3. 99. All the material objects were sent to Court to be subjected to chemical analysis and accordingly, subjected to. On completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the case was taken cognizance of.

(3.) AT the first instance, it has to be pointed out that the appellant/accused is none else than the brother of P. W. 2, the father of the child. It is not the case of the appellant/accused before the trial Court that any enmity, ill-will or strained-relationship prevailed between the parties. It is also not in dispute that P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and the appellant/accused were living under the same roof. From the evidence of P. W. 1, it could be seen that on the day of occurrence, she was requested by the appellant/accused to fetch tiffin for him and in view of the same, P. W. 1 left the house. When she came after ten minutes, she saw the accused just going out of the house without telling anything; but when P. W. 1 entered the house, she found the eight months child with burn injuries. AT this juncture, it has to be pointed out why the appellant/accused requested P. W. 1 to fetch tiffin and when the tiffin was also brought, the appellant/accused had no occasion to go out without telling anything. This circumstance would clearly indicate that he wanted to send out p. W. 1 on the guise of getting some tiffin in order to commit the offence.