S MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Mani , the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 17. 3. 1999, the deceased Mani went to his field and was sleeping in a hut and at that time, the appellant herein came there and beat him with Uruttukattai and caused injuries on the head. At that point of time, P. W. 1 Lakshmi , the wife of the deceased came for giving food to her husband and she happened to see that the accused running away from the field with an Uruttukattai in his hand. When she went and saw the deceased, the deceased was unconscious and struggling for life. On her crying, the other witnesses viz. ,p. W. 2, the daughter Sivagami , P. W. 3 the brother Subramani , came there to the scene. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to a private hospital and from there he was taken to Chennai General Hospital. On receipt of the message, p. W. 14 the Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital and received the complaint from P. W. 1 Lakshmi (Ex. P. 1 ). A case was registered under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. P. W. 12, doctor gave treatment, but despite the treatment, he died on 22. 3. 1999. Investigation was thereafter taken up by P. W. 17, the Inspector of Police. He altered the Section into 302 IPC and he conducted inquest and examined witnesses. He sent the body for post mortem. P. W. 15 Doctor conducted post mortem on 22. 3. 1999 and she found as many as nine injuries and issued Ex. P. 10 post mortem certificate. ACCORDING to her, the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries. P. W. 17 arrested the accused on 7. 12. 1999 and on his confession, in the presence of P. W. 8 and another, he recovered M. O. 3 Uruttukattai. Other material objects were sent for analysis. After investigation, P. W. 17 laid the charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 IPC. b) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 17, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 17 and marked M. Os. 1 to 3 before the trial court. c) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 cr. P. C. with reference to the incriminating materials, he denied his complicity in the crime. d) The trial Court, having regard to the circumstances available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him thereunder. This is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal before this Court filed by the appellant. 3) Mr. C. Durai Pandian , learned counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the judgment impugned, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the evidence available on record could not be sufficient to find the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IP C and therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted. 4) We have heard Mr. E Raja, learned Additional Public prosecutor on these aspects. 5) We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 6) The only evidence available on record as against the appellant/accused is that P. W. 1 saw the accused running away from the scene with Uruttukattai at or about the time of occurrence. P. W. 2 would state that P. W. 1 cried that accused Mani beat the deceased and ran away from the scene and on her crying, P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and other people came to the scene. Therefore, it is clear that there is no eye witness to the occurrence but from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear that the accused was running away from the scene at or about the time of occurrence. This evidence, in our view, does not impress us for the reason that in the earlier document Ex. P. 6 the accident register copy which was given by the doctor P. W. 12, prepared at 4. 30 a. m. on 18. 3. 1999, it is mentioned thatp. W. 1 Lakshmi and Suresh who brought the deceased told that he was attacked by unknown persons with weapons. Further, in the statement Ex. P. 1 which has been given by P. W. 1 at 11. 00 a. m. on 18. 3. 1999, there is no mention about the identity of the accused. As a matter of fact, FIR shows that the accused is not known. So, these two documents viz. , Ex. P. 6 given by P. W. 12, the Doctor, who gave treatment to the deceased and Ex. P. 1 statement of P. W. 1, recorded by P. W. 14, the Sub Inspector of Police at 11. 00 a. m. on 18. 3. 1999, do not indicate that P. W. 1 has given any detail about the accused, either to the Doctor or to the police officer. It is curious to note that in this case even at the time of investigation, either by P. W. 14 or P. W. 17, the identity of the accused was not known. On the other hand, P. W. 17 would admit that after the inquest was over, he sent the requisition to the doctor for conducting post mortem and in that document also, he has specifically stated that accused is not known. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 1 with reference to the accused running away from the scene has come for the first time belatedly and though p. W. 2 would state in the Court that P. W. 1 cried that Mani , the accused herein beat the deceased and ran way, in the evidence of P. W. 17, there is no mention that P. W. 2 has given any such statement during the course of investigation. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2. This, in our view, is an improvement. Therefore, the appellant/accused is liable to be acquitted as he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 7) In fine, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. .