PUNNIAKOTI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the accused in S. C. No. 14 of 1987 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. He was found guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sen tenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to.

(2.) Brief facts are : - (a) There is a housing complex at door No. 39, Srinivasa Achari Street, Perambur, Madras. In the said complex, there are about twenty houses. The accused, along with his brother Samraj (since de ceased) and his parents was residing at door No. 6, At Door No. 4, one Savithiri had been residing, along with her husband, by name Devaraj and her children. At Door No. 5, her sister by name Muniammal (P.W. 4) had been residing. P.W. 1 is the brother of the said Devaraj and he had also been residing, alongwith the family members of P.W. 4, P.W. 1 and the deceased, it is said, were employed as tinkers in a steel company. (b) The accused used to frequent to the house of Savithiri and had a friendly talk with her, during the absence of her husband. Somehow or other, the accused was said to have developed clandestine relationship with the said Savithiri. This abominable conduct of the accused had been reprimanded by his brother, Samraj (the deceased) and his other family members. The accused was said to have severely warned him a week prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 30-8-1986 to sever such clandes tine relationship with the said Savithiri. Thereafter, the accused ceased to visit the house of the said Savithiri and instead, he had been meeting her outside the house. (c) A day previous to the occurrence, the accused was found in the company of the said Savithiri. The deceased Samraj was said to have seen the accused in the company of the said Savithiri at the bus stand. This irritated the deceased. He appeared to have complained to his mother P.W. 3 of such clandestine meeting and the relationship between the accused and the said Savithiri as continuing outside the house. (d) On the day of the occurrence, at about 7 p.m., the deceased came to the house and requested his mother to somehow or other see that this brother, the accused, ceased his illicit connection with the said Savithiri. The accused at that time came to the house and heard the conversation of the deceased with his mother. The accused, enraged at such a conduct of the deceased, picked up a casuarina stick (M.O. 1) lying in front of his house, rushed into the house and beat the deceased Samraj with the same on his head, back and other parts of his body indiscriminately. After inflicting such indiscriminate beatings he ran out of the house, with M.O. 1. As a consequence of such beatings, the deceased Samraj fell down on the ground with profuse bleeding. P.W. 1 to 3 is said, had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the entirety of the occurrence, while P.W. 4 was able to see the incriminating circumstance of the accused picking up the casuarina stick (M.O. 1) lying in front of his house, going inside his house and coming out of the house in hurly burly fashion with M.O. 1. P.W. 3, mother of the accused procured an auto and took the victim, the deceased to the Government Stanley Hospital, Madras, in a bid to save his life. (e) P.W. 9 was the then Medical Officer attached to Government Stanley Medical College Hospital, Madras. At 8.15 p.m., while he has on duty, the victim. The deceased had been examined by him. On such examination, he found him to be dead. He noted down the injuries found on the person of the deceased in the Accident Register. P.W. 3, it is said, had told him that the younger brother of the victim the deceased was responsible for the causation of the injuries on the person of the de ceased, by means of a stick. Exhibit P. 6 is the copy of the accident register. He then sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary. (f) P.W. 12 was the then Inspector of Police, Sembium Police Station. At 9.45 p.m., while he was in the police station, P.W. 3 appeared before him and gave Exhibit P. 14 report, as respects the occur rence. He registered the same, as a case in Crime No. 4428/86, for an alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Exhibit P. 1 to 5 is the copy of the printed FIR. He took up further investi gation in this case. (g) He rushed and reached the place of occur rence at 10.30 p.m. He examined P.W. 3 and others. On 31-8-1986, at about 5.50 a.m., he drew rough sketches of the scene of occurrence, Exhibits P. 16 to P. 18. At 6. 45 a.m., he inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P. 1 observation mahazar. At 7.15 a. m., he seized bloodstained earth (M. O. 2) and sample earth (M.O. 3) under Exhibit P. 2, mahazar. Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 had been attested by P.W. 5. (h) He then went to Government Stanley Medi cal College Hospital. Between 8 and 10.30 a.m., he had inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3, and others. Exhibit P. 19 is the inquest report. He seized from the body of the deceased, shirt (M. O. 4), banian (M. O. 5), pant (M. O. 6) and towel (M.O. 7) under Exhibit P. 3, mahazar, attested by P.W. 6 and another. After the inquest was over he handed over the body of the deceased to P.W. 8 constable, along with Exhibit P. 11 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. (i) P.W. 11 was the then Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Medical College Hospital, Madras. On receipt of Exhibit P. 11 requisition at 11.15 a.m., he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 11.25 a.m. on the same day. Exhibit P. 12 is the postmortem certificate he issued. Viscera were preserved for chemical analysis in supersaturated saline. Viscera were sent for chemical analysis. Exhibit P. 13 is the Chemical Examiner's report, relatable to viscera. He would opine that external injuries 4/1 to 6 found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by beating with a stick, like M. O. 1 and external injuries 7 to 9 could have been caused by falling and coming into contact with tough surface. He would further opine the external injuries 1 to 5, correspond ing to internal injuries 1 to 5 were necessarily fatal and death could have occurred 16 to 20 hours, prior to autopsy. (j) P.W. 12 went to the scene of occurrence in the evening and examined P.Ws. 4 and 5. He also examined the doctor P.W. 9. He searched for the accused and he was not available. (k) On 1-9-1986, at 2.10 p.m., P.W. 12 arrested the accused in front of Selvapathy Chettiar part at Pulivantope and he appeared to have given volun tary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P. 4. Pursuant to such a confession, the accused appeared to have taken P.Ws. 7 and 12 to Otteri Carnatic Mill Colony and took out and produced, M.O. 1 cansuarina stick kept concealed in a bush situate near the north eastern corner of the compound of the Carnatic Mill Colony. M.O. 1 had been seized by P.W. 12 under Exhibit P. 5 mahazar. Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5 had been attested by P.W. 7 and another. (1) P.W. 12 then returned to the police station along with the accused and the seized M.O. 1. On the next day, he sent the accused to Court for remand besides forwarding the seized material objects to Court. He also sent Exhibit P. 7 requisition to Court for sending the material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. (m) P.W. 10 was the then Assistant Cashier attached to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Madras. On receipt of Exhibit P. 7 requisition, he dispatched the material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of exami nation, under the original of Exhibit P. 8, Office copy of the letter. Exhibits P. 9 and P. 10 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. (n) P.W. 12, after completing the investigation, laid the final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 27-10-1986 before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) On committal, a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code had been framed against the accused by the Court of Session, Madras Division. When questioned as respects the charge so framed, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.