MURUGAN S/O CHELLAM MUPPER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, the sole accused in Sessions Case No.500 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 05.02.2002, convicting him under Sections 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(3.) FURTHER, in this case, as to how the deceased Nachiyammal sustained injuries is highly suspicious. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2001 at 11.15 a.m. she was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, by P.W.4 Karuthapandian and she was admitted in the hospital by P.W.12 Doctor. At that time, the medical officer, who admitted the injured, has recorded that the patient was conscious and oriented and at the time of admission the patient has stated that she accidentally fell into a well at 9.00 a.m. at her native place. Therefore, the earliest version in this case is that the deceased sustained injuries herself due to the accidental fall into a well in her native place. P.W.1, who claims to be an eye-witness, did not lodge any complaint immediately after the occurrence or till 06.06.2001 on which date the injured died. It is curious to note that P.W.1, the second husband of the deceased who lived with her for more than two years, did not take any attempt to take her to hospital or atleast to pay a visit to the hospital when she was taking treatment. But, only on 08.06.2001 at about 6.30 a.m. he has lodged a complaint with P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police who registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2001 for an alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The failure on the part of P.W.1 either to take the injured to the hospital or to visit her till her death or to lodge a complaint either immediately after the occurrence or immediately after the death of the deceased on 06.06.2001, i.e. two days after the occurrence, raises serious suspicion against the conduct of P.W.1. Probably, the accused, who is the son of the deceased, might have been a thorn in the flesh of P.W.1 and that is why he might have implicated the accused at a belated stage.