RANGASAMY ALIAS GNANAPRAKASAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the II Additional District Sessions court, Erode, made in S. C. No. 145 of 1999, wherein the accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC. and awarded life imprisonment, is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows:- i. THE accused/appellant was living with his wife, the deceased in the case, at Sathyamangalam. He was working as a cleaner in a lorry, in which, P. W. 1 was working as a driver. THE accused/appellant and P. W. 1 were cousins. P. W. 1 used to go to the house of the accused/appellant and later, he developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused/appellant. P. W. 4 is the brother of the deceased. THE fact that P. W. 1 and the deceased had illicit intimacy was not known to the accused/appellant till both P. W. 1 and the deceased left the place on 11. 4. 1999. On 12. 4. 1999, the accused/appellant gave a complaint at Kadambur Police Station reporting about the same. THE police called P. W. 1 and the deceased and also the accused/appellant, enquired them and the matter is pending. ii. While the matter stood thus, P. W. 1 and the deceased again decided to go over to some other place to eke their livelihood. Hence, p. W. 1 sought the help of P. W. 2 and asked him to wait with his TVS 50 moped in a particular place. On the night of 13. 4. 1999, P. W. 2 was waiting nearby the house of the accused/appellant. At about 1. 00 a. m. , near the house of the accused/appellant, the deceased and P. W. 1 were standing and talking with each other. At that time, P. W. 4, the brother of the deceased, and P. W. 3, the friend of P. W. 1, were also coming to that place. THEy also saw p. W. 1 and the deceased standing in front of the house of the accused/appellant. P. W. 2 was also standing nearby with his TVS 50 moped. On seeing this, the accused/appellant questioned his wife as to where she was going. So saying, he took the wooden part of a spade and attacked her on her head and on her face. On seeing this, P. W. 1 attempted to escape. THE accused/appellant chased him, but he could not attack him. P. W. 1 went in the moped along with P. W. 2 and escaped from the place. iii. On 14. 4. 1999 at about 6. 00 a. m. , the accused appeared before P. W. 10, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadmabur Police Station, who was on duty at that time, and gave a statement, which was recorded by him. On the basis of the said statement, a case in Crime No. 19 of 1999 came to be registered by the respondent police under Section 302 of I. P. C. THE first information report prepared under Ex. P-14 was despatched to the Court. At about 7. 30 a. m. P. W. 10 arrested the accused and recovered M. O. 9, the shirt of the accused/appellant under a cover of Ex. P-15 mahazar in the presence of P. W. 5. iv. On receipt of the copy of the printed first information report, P. W. 11, the Inspector of Police, Bangalapudur Police station, took up investigation in the case, and questioned the accused/appellant at the police station. He volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded by the investigating officer in the presence of P. W. 5. THE admissible part is marked under Ex. P-1, pursuant to which, he produced M. O. 1. THE officer recovered the same under Ex. P-2 mahazar attested by witnesses. THEreafter, the investigating officer proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar under Ex. P-3 and drew a rough sketch under Ex. P-16 mahazar. He also recovered from the place of occurrence M. O. 2, blood stained earth, and M. O. 3, sample earth and other material objects under a cover of mahazar. Photographs, M. O. 4 series, were taken and M. O. 5 series are their negatives. At the place of occurrence, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex. P-17 mahazar. THEreafter, he issued a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy. v. On receipt of the requisition, P. W. 6, the Medical officer attached to Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Indira and found the following injuries:- 1. A lacerated wound on the right side of the nose including right side of the face 7cm x 3cm x 3cm. 2. Fracture on the right side of the nasal bone. 3. Fracture on the right side of the maxilla. 4. Contusion on the left side of the neck collar region. On dissection, blood clots were seen. 5. Contusion on the front of right side of the chest. Black in colour. On dissection, blood clots were seen. Hyoid bone was found intact. 6. Abrasion on the right knee 2cmx 3cm. 7. Multiple abrasions on both legs. 8. A lacerated wound on the right occipital region horizontally 4 cm x 3 cm x bone depth. 9. A lacerated wound left parietal region 6cmx5cmxbone deep. On dissection, fracture of left parietal bone was noted. Blood clots were present in the brain. THE doctor has issued the post-mortem certificate under ex. P-6 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury about 24 hours prior to autopsy. vi. In the meantime, the accused/appellant was sent to judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis by the forensic Department. THE Chemical Analyst's report under Ex. P-10 and the serologist's report under Ex. P-11 were obtained and placed before the Court. THE investigating officer, after completing investigation, filed the final report against the accused/appellant.

(3.) THE Court heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor on the above contentions.