KOZHUKKATTAI CHINNASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR having caused the death of one Kalthotti Chinnasamy, by shooting with a country-gun on 20. 12. 2000, Kozhukkattai Chinnasamy, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) THE deceased Kalthotti Chinnasamy and the accused kozhukkattai Chinnasamy were closely related to each other. P. W. 1 Kalthotti kavitha recently got married to P. W. 3 Kozhukkattai Muthusamy. Accused kozhukkattai Chinnasamy is the brother of P. W. 3. (b) P. Ws. 1 and 3 arranged for a dinner on 20. 12. 2000 in their house. THErefore, they invited their family friends and relatives. In pursuance of the said invitation, P. W. 2 Kalthotti Vellaiyan and his brother, viz. ,the deceased Kalthotti Chinnasamy, both went to the house of P. W. 1 kalthotti Kavitha. Other relatives, viz. , P. W. 4 Chennumathi Chandran, P. W. 5 sottha Shanmugam and P. W. 6 Balasundaram (Village Administrative Officer) were also present. (c) In the evening of 20. 12. 2000, they went to various places and killed the pigs and distributed the pig fork to all their relatives and brought a portion of it to the house of P. W. 1 Kalthotti Kavitha. After cooking, the food was served to all persons. After finishing their food, the witnesses and the accused were talking together in front of the house of P. W. 3 kozhukkattai Muthusamy. (d) During the course of conversation, there was an altercation between the accused Kozhukattai Chinnasamy and P. W. 5, Sottha shanmugam, his brother-in-law. Deceased Kalthotti Chinnasamy intervened and tried to pacify the accused and P. W. 5. Having felt irritated over his intervention, accused Kozhukkattai Chinnasamy abused the deceased Kalthotti chinnasamy and questioned him as to how he could intervene in the quarrel between the accused and his brother-in-law P. W. 5 Sottha Shanmugam. (e) So saying, the accused left the place and ran to his house and within a few minutes, he came with a country-gun and a battery-light tied on his head and aimed at the deceased and shot at him. THE accused thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence. (f) THE deceased fell down and then all of them gathered in the scene of occurrence. On hearing the news, P. W. 7 Kalthotti Suresh, the son of the deceased came to the scene of occurrence. THE deceased told them that they need not take any effort to take him to the hospital as he would die soon, and requested them to lift and put him in front of the house of the accused, which is situated nearby. Accordingly, the victim-deceased was lifted and left in front of the house of the accused. Within a few minutes, the deceased died. (g) P. W. 1 Kalthotti Kavitha and P. W. 2 Kalthotti vellaiyan, the brother of the deceased, went to P. W. 6 Village Administrative officer (V. A. O) and gave a statement regarding the occurrence. THEn, P. W. 6 v. A. O. came to the scene of occurrence. He found that the deceased was dead. THEn he prepared a report and obtained signatures from both P. Ws. 1 and 2. (h) THEreafter, P. W. 6 V. A. O, along with P. Ws. 1 and 2, went to Valavanthinadu Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint to P. W. 14 sub-Inspector of Police. (i) On 21. 12. 2000 at about 10. 00 a. m. , P. W. 14 sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No. 215 of 2000 for the offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Indian Arms act and the complaint as well as the F. I. R. was sent to the concerned Court. A message was also given to P. W. 15 Inspector of Police. (j) P. W. 15 Inspector of Police took up investigation at about 11. 30 a. m. and went to the scene of occurrence along with P. W. 6 V. A. O. He prepared Ex. P-2 observation mahazar and Ex. P-21 rough sketch. THEn, he conducted inquest between 1. 00 p. m. and 3. 30 p. m. and examined the witnesses. Ex. P-22 is the inquest report. THEn, the body was sent for conducting post-mortem. (k) P. W. 10 Doctor conducted post-mortem on 22. 12. 2000 at about 2. 00 p. m. He issued Ex. P-11 post-mortem certificate and gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to fire-arm injury about 30 to 48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. (l) P. W. 15 Inspector of Police took steps to arrest the accused. In the meantime, he received an information that the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 27. 12. 2000. Subsequently, police custody was obtained on 3. 1. 2001. On the confession of the accused, M. O. 1 country-gun was recovered from him in the presence of P. W. 6 V. A. O. under Ex. P-4 mahazar. (m) In the meantime, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis and for ballistic expert's opinion. After obtaining sanction in respect of the offence under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and after completion of the investigation, P. W. 15 Inspector of Police filed the chargesheet. (n) During the course of trial, P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-23 were marked and M. Os. 1 to 6 were marked. (o) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 cr. P. C. , he simply denied the offences and stated that he was not residing in the village in question on the date of occurrence and he has been permanently residing in one village called Nachipudur. (p) Even though alibi had been pleaded, the accused has not produced any document to establish the same. However, he examined one karuvada Chandran as D. W. 1. According to D. W. 1, P. W. 3 Kozhukkattai Muthusamy informed him on the date of occurrence that there was a dead body in front of his house and he went and saw that the same was that of the deceased and informed the villagers. According to D. W. 1, nobody knew at that time who was the assailant. (q) THE trial Court, after having considered the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offences referred to above and convicted him thereunder. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties.