MAADHAIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, who stood charged, tried and found guilty in a case of murder, wherein he was awarded life sentence for an offence under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. and also awarded one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Sec. 324 of I. P. C. (two counts), has brought forth this appeal, aggrieved over the judgment rendered by the Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, in S. C. No. 107 of 1998.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows: (a) The deceased Krishnan was living with his wife P. W. 1 Dhanabaghiyam, and daughter P. W. 2 Parimala, at Vadamalampatti. He had two brothers who are the accused and P. W. 3 Sivaraman. Originally, they had 4 acres of land and 3 tamarind trees. Seven years prior to the date of occurrence, a panchayat was convened, and the properties were divided. Out of the three tamarind trees, the big one was given to the deceased, while the other two trees were allotted to the other brothers. All of them leased out their respective tamarind tree. The appellant/accused quarrelled and was telling that the big tree should be allotted to him, after the lease period was over. Then, another panchayat was convened just 20 days prior to the date of occurrence. The panchayatdars decided that the deceased should pay Rs. 500/- to the appellant/accused, to which course the appellant/accused refused. (b) On the date of occurrence namely 30. 1. 1995 at about 10. 30 A. M. , the deceased was just proceeding to his field. At that time, the appellant/accused intervened and was telling that the house, where the tamarind trees were situated, remained common, and the same should also be divided. The deceased replied that the said house was constructed by him, and hence, it could not be divided. Immediately, the appellant/accused took a palai knife M. O. 1 and attacked the deceased on his left hand. On hearing the distressed cry, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went nearby and attempted to rescue the deceased. At the time of intervention made by P. Ws. 1 and 2, the appellant/accused attacked P. W. 1 on the right shoulder and P. W. 2 on the right hand, with a knife. With the weapons of crime, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. P. W. 4 Chakravarthy, and P. W. 5 Akkumari, have also witnessed the occurrence. Immediately, the injured Krishnan was taken to the hospital by P. Ws. 1, 2 and others. (c) At 12. 05 P. M. , P. W. 19 Dr. Venkatesan, who was on duty in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri, examined the injured Krishnan. The accident register copy was marked as Ex. P26, where the injuries have been narrated. The Doctor sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate P. W. 12 M. M. Anandakumar, on receipt of the requisition, rushed to the hospital. At about 1. 15 P. M. , he recorded the dying declaration of the injured. The proceedings were marked as Ex. P11. Both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were also examined by the Doctor P. W. 19, and the wound certificates in their regard were issued by him, which were marked as Exs. P28 and P29 respectively. (d) P. W. 17 Balakrishnan, the Head Constable, attached to the Government Hospital Out-Post Police Station, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the information, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Krishnan, which was marked as Ex. P1. He, then, went to Pochampalli Police Station and handed over Ex. P1 to P. W. 16 Dhanapal, the Head Constable, attached to the said Police Station. On the strength of Ex. P1 complaint, he registered a case in Crime No. 8/95 under Sections 324 and 307 of I. P. C. The printed First Information Report Ex. P15 was despatched to the Court. (e) On receipt of a copy of the FIR, P. W. 20 Ajeem, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pochampalli Police Station, took up the matter for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence. An information was received from the Government Hospital that the injured Krishnan died at 7. 15 P. M. On receipt of the same, he converted the case to Sec. 302 of I. P. C. The express report Ex. P14 was sent to the Court. The Investigating Officer made an inspection of the place of occurrence at 5. 00 A. M. on 31. 1. 1995 and prepared Ex. P2 observation mahazar and Ex. P30 rough sketch. He collected from the place of occurrence M. O. 5 bloodstained earth, and M. O. 6 sample earth, under Ex. P3 mahazar. He, then, proceeded to the hospital, conducted inquest on the dead body of Krishnan in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex. P31 inquest report. The place of occurrence was photographed through P. W. 11 Chinnasamy, a photographer. The photographs and their negatives were also marked as Exs. P8 and P9 respectively. A requisition was forwarded to the Government Hospital for conduct of autopsy on the dead body of Krishnan. (f) On receipt of the requisition Ex. P12, P. W. 13 Dr. Natarajan, Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Krishnan and found the following injuries.

(3.) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and relied on 31 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. He filed a written statement stating that it was due to the sudden quarrel that arose between the parties at the time of the occurrence, and it was neither intentional nor premeditated, and it has got to be considered. No defence witnesses were examined. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded the punishment referred to above. Aggrieved over the said judgment, the appellant has brought forth this appeal.