CHELLAMMAL Vs. PACKIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision-petitioner herein was P. W. 1 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. She has filed this petition challenging the judgment in the above case acquitting respondents 1 to 3, who were accused 1 to 3 before the trial court. The said case is a double-murder case. These three respondents were charged under three heads, viz. , accused 1 and 2 under charge No. 1 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. , for having caused the death of Thangaraj; accused3 under charge No. 2 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 for having abetted the said offence of murder, and then accused-1 under charge-3 for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of one Ramu Nadar, husband of the petitioner. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on 7-6-1974 at about 9 a. m. in front of the house of deceased Ramu Nadar.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 6-6-1974 (the day previous to the date of occurrence) at Erattai Ooorani, there was a panchayat in connection with accused-1 having uttered abusive language against one Chellammal (petitioner herein), wife of deceased Ramu Nadar, which resulted in ill-feeling between the family of the deceased and that of accused-1. On account of that on 7-6-1974, at about 9 a. m. accused-1 picked up a quarrel with deceased Ramu Nadar in front of his house and stabbed him twice on his back near the neck and on the flank. The injured succumbed to the injuries at 10. 30 a. m. on 29-61974. At that time, Thangaraj, (one of the sons of P. W. 1 and deceased Ramu Nadar) intervened and quarrelled with the third accused son of accused-1. Accused-2 brother-in-law of accused-1, thereupon stabbed the deceased Thangaraj with a knife on his left side of his back on the left and right flanks. Accused-3 caught hold of the deceased Thangaraj by his head and accused-1 stabbed him near the left side of his neck with the knife. Thangaraj died instantaneously. The detailed facts of the case are well set out in the judgment of the trial court and I think there is no need to reiterate the same in this revision petition The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses including official witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-23 and M. Os. 1 to 8. Of the witnesses examined, P. Ws. 1 and 3 to 6 were examined by the prosecution to speak about the occurrence. But, P Ws. 3 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case and therefore they were treated as hostile. P. W. 7, the Judicial II Class Magistrate, speaks about the recording of the dying declaration (Ex. P-2) from deceased Ramu Nadar between 5-25 p. m. and 5-45 p. m. Ex. P-3 is the certificate appended to Ex. P-2 by P. W. 8 to the effect that the patient was conscious throughout. P. W. 8, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, speaks about the treatment given to deceased Ramu Nadar and the injuries as detailed in Ex. P-4. He has also deposed that he certified under Ex. P-3 in Ex. P-2 that the patient was conscious, when the dying declaration was recorded and that he (Ramu Nadar) died on 29-6-1974 at 10. 30 a. m. P. W. 9, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, has given evidence about the injuries found on the person of deceased Ramu Nadar during the nost-mortem examination Ex. P-5 is the post-mortem certificate. P. W. 10, another Medical Officer of the same hospital, has issued Ex, P. 6, post-mortem certificate in respect of the injuries found on the person of deceased Thangaraj. P. W. 2 speaks about the motive viz. , accused-1 having uttered abusive language against the petitioner, wife of Ramu Nadar, which resulted in the ill-feeling between the parties, and P. W. 13 speaks about the panchayat held in connection therewith. P. W. 14 speaks that he is the person who handed over to the police M. O. 7 which he took from the scene of occurrence and had hidden in a hayrick in the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 15, who is the Village Munsif of Krattai Ooorani, has deposed that he was present when the Sub-Inspector of Police inspected the scene and he has attested Exs. P-7 to F-11. P. W. 18, the Sub-Inspector of Police, would state that he went to the scene of occurrence on receipt of the phone message and at the scene he examined Ramu Nadar under Ex. P-16 (the first information report) Further he speaks about the registration of the case and the conduct of the inquest on the body of Thangaraj and the examination of the witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 6 and others during the inquest, and further investigation done by him. P. W. 19, the Inspector of Police, verified the investigation made by P. W. 18 and laid the charge-sheet against the accused on 10-8-1974.

(3.) WHEN questioned with reference to the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, accused-1 had denied the illicit intimacy between himself and P. W. 1. He further stated that the husband of P. W. 1 (Ramu Nadar), had returned from Malaya, but he did not use to talk to him and others and hence he told about this to the villagers and requested them to ask the husband of P. W. 1. about this and the villagers questioned about this and that on the next day, when he was returning from his garden, Thangaraj and Ramu Nadar (both deceased) came from their houses and pushed him down and Thangaraj sat on his chest and Ramu Nadar squeezed his testicles, whereupon the first accused became unconscious. The second accused has simply stated that he has got nothing to add to what accused-1 has stated. Accused-3 has stated that on 7-6-1974 (Friday) morning, when he was in his house, Thangaraj beat him and some time later when he came out, he saw accused-1. Thangaraj, Ramu Nadar and P. W. 1 quarrelling and he saw the testicles of his father (A-1) being squeezed and Thangaraj sitting on the chest of his father and P. W. 1 poking her fingers into his eyes (Original in Tamil omitted) and that Sundari (wife of deceased Thangaraj) came with a knife. Further, he would state that he got the knife from her and thereafter he did not know what he did. The learned trial Judge, after analysing the evidence and the judicial dying declaration Ex. P-2 and the other statements of the deceased viz. , Ex P-16 (first information report) recorded by P. W. 18 and Ex. P-19, the statement of deceased Ramu Nadar recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by P. W. 18 has finally concluded thus: