MURUGAN ALIAS MURUGESAN ALIAS MUTTAKOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the accused in S. C. No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Periyar Division at Erode. He was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. THE present action is against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) BRIEF facts are: (a) Mathippanur and Koodakkarai Thottiyapalayam are adjacent villages, situate within the jurisdictional limits of Kadathur Police station. One Ramaswami (since deceased) was a resident of Mathippanur while the accused Murugan alias Murugesan alias Muttakose hails from Koodakkarai thottiyapalayam. The deceased was functioning as a teacher in a Panchayat Union School at Sadhagamugai, a village situate very near to his village. He owns a garden land going by the name'mamarathu Thottam'situate in his village, in close quarters to his place Of residence. In the said garden land, there were mango trees, besides palmyrah frees, numbering ten. (b) Sometime prior to the occurrence, which event happened on the 8th April, 1985 the palmyrah trees were leased out by the deceased to the accused for the purpose of tapping toddy. The accused agreed to pay Rs. 30 per mensem, for tapping toddy for a period of 100 days. The tapping season also co-terminated with the mango season. In the process or lapping today and distributing it by way of sale to consumers it so happened, that such crowd collected in the said thottam happened to pluck mangoes in the trees causing loss to the deceased. Likewise, accused also plucked mangoes in the process of tapping toddy from the trees. This also irritated the. deceased. Consequently, the deceased mandated the accused to somehow or other cease the toddy tapping operation by removal of the pots from the trees. (c) a few days prior to the occurrence, that is to say, on the morning of 4. 4. 1985 the deceased again persisted in making the demand from the accused for removal of the pots from the trees and cease toddy tapping operation. The accused oh his part resisted such a move and there arose a wordy altercation between them. Such a wordy alteraction was likely to have resulted in an untoward incident; bur for the timely intervention of P. W. 1, wife of the deceased who happened to be there. As a matter of fact both the deceased and the accused rose in revolt, in the sense of the accused catching hold of a knife and the deceased seizing a stick lying there. They were actually making preparations for a fight. The accused somehow or other removed the mud pots from four of the trees and ceased to draw toddy from six trees. He, however, continued to draw toddy from the other six trees till about four days prior to the day of occurrence. (d) On the day of occurrence, at about 9 a. m. , the accused was on top of the palmyrah tree situate near the well in the thottam in the process of drawing toddy. The deceased again persisted in making a demand to the accused to remove the pots from the other six trees and stop toddy tapping operations from them. At that time, P. W. 1. was grazing buffaloes in the nearby fields. The accused got down from the tree and walked towards the deceased who was proceeding towards the well. The accused all of a sudden took m. O. 1, aamara kathi (knife), from the basket like thing kept tied to his wrist, being utilised for the purpose of keeping the tools of his profession and with the aid of the said knife, he inflicted number of cuts on the person of the deceased and the cuts so inflicted indiscriminately fell on all portions of his body. The deceased fell down dead. P. W. 1 seeing the dastardly occurrence, raised a hue and cry and on hearing the same, P. W. 2 also rushed towards the place of occurrence. In the meantime, the accused ran away with the said knife. Immediately after the occurrence, P. W. 3 a neighbouring land owner also came to the scene and in such process, she had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the accused running from there with the knife towards east. Some of the villagers also came to the scene and one such person reached the scene was by name one muthu. (e) P. W. 10 was the then Inspector of Police, Nambiyur police Station. At about 11 a. m. , he went to the police station and while he was available there, accused, who escaped from the scene, presented himself before him at 11. 45 a. m. with bloodstained knife. Immediately, P. W. 10 sent for p. W. 4 Village Administrative Officer, Nambiyur, who in turn came to the police station along with one Murugesan. The accused offered to give a statement and the statement so given by him was recorded as per his narration in the printed form of First Information Report in the presence of P. W. 4 and another, by name murugesan. Ex. P-1 is the statement. P. W. 4 attested the same. The same has been registered in Crime No. 56 of 1985 under Sec. 302, I. P. C. The knife (M. O. 1) was also seized from the accused by P. W. 10 under Form No. 95 besides the clothes worn by him, namely M. O. 2 shirts and M. O. 3 towel. He then proceeded to the scene of occurrence. (f) In the meantime, at 12. 35 p. m. , the said Muthu gave a complaint to P. W. 11 Village Administrative Officer, Ukkaram Village. The complaint so given has been reduced to writing by him and the same had been despatched, through village thotti by name Palanichamy, to Kadathur Police station. He also sent printed report intended for the Court through the said thotti to be delivered at the police station so that the same may be forwarded to the court concerned. (g) Then P. W. 10 reached the scene village at about 1. 30 p. m. , along with accused. After inspecting the scene, he prepared Ex. P-2 observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch of the scene, Ex. P-13. Between 1. 45 and 5. 45 p. m. , he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex. P-14 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P. Ws. 1, 2 and others. After inquest, he handed over the body of the deceased to the constable, P. W. 8, along with Ex. P-4 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. Then at 5. 50 p. m. , he seized from the scene bloodstained granite stone (M. O. 4) broken mudpot, M. O. 5 blood stained earth (M. O. 6) and sample earth (M. O. 7) under Ex. P-3 mahazar. Exs. P-2 and P-3 were attested by P. W. 5. He also caused photographs of the scene to be taken by the photographer P. W. 6 and M. Os. 8 to 11 were the negative and photo prints. He then took the accused to Kadathur Police Station and kept him in the lockup there and the next day, he sent him to court for remand. (h) P. W. 7, was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Sathyamangalam. On receipt of Ex. P-4 requisition, he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 11-30 a. m. , on 9. 4. 1985. Ex. P-5 is the post-mortem certificate he issued. He opined that all those injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M. O. 1. He would further opine that external injury No. 1 with its corresponding internal injury to the brain is necessary fatal. Ex. P-6 is the report of the Chemical Examiner relatable to the hair and Ex. P-7 is the report of the serologist regarding the sample, blood of the deceased. (i) After the autopsy was over, the Constable P. W. 8 seized from the body M. O. 12 shirt M. O. 13, lungi M. O. 14 Underwear, M. O. 15 waist cord and M. O. 16 wrist watch and handed over the same at the police station and the same appeared to have been seized in Form No. 95. (j) P. W. 10 on the same day examined P. Ws. 6 to 8. On

(3.) FROM the submissions made by Mr. M. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public prosecutor, the, lone sole point that arises for consideration is as to whether the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the appellant-accused by the court below are sustainable in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case.