THAMILARASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant who was accused in S.C. No. 62 of 1987 on the file of Court of Session, South Arcot Division at Cuddalore, was found guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to.

(2.) Brief Facts are :-(a) The accused is a resident of Vayalamoor village, a rustic atmosphere falling within the jurisdiction of Puduchatram police station, P.W. 1 is his wife. Their marriage took place in the year 1984. Of the lawful wedlock, a female offspring came into existence. On the morning of 1-11-1986, P.W. 1, the wife of the accused gave birth to a male issue in the house of the accused. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the sisters of the accused. One Chinnadorai is his brother. The accused had been employed as a Kalasi at Neyveli. It appears that for the purpose of avocation, he had been staying at Neyveli and visiting his house often and on.(b)1-11-1986 happened to be Deepavali day. At about 9.30 a.m. the accused came and saw the new-born-male-babe to his wife. He was puzzled to see the complexion of the child. The complexion of the child was red in colour. On seeing such a complexion, he suspected the fidelity of his wife and openly proclaimed that the said child was not born to him. Unable to bear the sight of such a child, he whipped to bear the sight of such a child, he whipped out a hacksaw blade (MO 3) from his waist and ripped open the belly of the said child and ran away from there.(c) At that time, his sister P.W. 2 was bodily present inside the room, where the child was lying, while his another sister, P.W. 3 was in the adjoining portion. P.W. 2 raised a hue and cry and attracted by such a hue and cry, P.W. 3 came there and saw the pitiable plight of the new-born-male-babe with injury on its abdomen. She immediately, along with her brother Chinnadorai, took the child for the purpose of treatment at the hands of the doctor, P.W. 7, attached to a private clinic going by the name 'Palaniammal Nursing Home' at 10 a.m. The doctor felt that surgery was necessary and he requisitioned the services of P.W. 8, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Govt. Hospital, Chidambaram. He, in turn, came and treated the Victim-child, but none-the-less, the child breathed its last on the next day (that is on 2-11-1986).(d) In the meanwhile, P.W. 4, then village Administrative officer, Vaylamoor village, came to know of the occurrence through his menials on 2-1l-1986. He went to the house of P.W. 1 and recorded her statement, Exhibit P. 1. He read over the same to her and she, in turn, accepted the same to be correct. P.W. 4, in turn, got her thumb impression in it. He prepared his special report, Exhibit P. 2. He then went to Puduchatram Police Station, taking along with him, Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 and handed over the same to P.W. 10, then Sub Inspector of Police, The time was then 4 p.m. P.W. 10, in turn, registered the same as a case in Crime No. 210/86 under Section 307, I.P.C. Exhibit P. 11 is the printed FIR. He then went to the scene village. He examined P.W. 1. While he was in the process of examining her, the child which died in the hospital, was brought to the scene village. He immediately went to the police station and altered the case into one under Section 302, I.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Exhibit P. 12 is the express FIR sent to Court.(e) P.W. 12 was the then Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Taluk Police Station. At 12 midnight, he received the express copy of the FIR and took up further investigation of the case. He went and reached the scene village at 5.30 a.m. on 3-11-1986. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P. 4 observation mahazar attested by P.W. 5. He drew a rough sketch of the scene, Exhibit P. 14. Between 6 and 8 a.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Exhibit P. 15 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 2 and 4. After inquest, he handed over the body of the deceased to one Ganapathy, Constable, with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy. He then examined P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and others.(f) One Dr. Angayarkanni was the then Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Portonovo. She held. autopsy over the body of the deceased. Exhibit P. 13 is the post-mortem certificate she issued. At the time of trial, she was bedridden at the hospital and consequently, she was unable to come to Court to give evidence. The doctor P.W. 11 then Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Portonovo, acquainted with her handwriting and signature had been examined and through him, Exhibit P. 13 post-mortem Certificate had been marked. He would opine that the injury he found described in Exhibit P. 13 Post-mortem Certificate could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 3 hacksaw blade. He would further opine that the deceased would appear to have died due to injury to the vital organ haemorrhage.(g) On 5-11-1986 at 9.30 a.m., P.W. 12 arrested the accused at Madharakuppam in the presence of P.W. 6. On interrogation, the accused appeared to have given a voluntary confession-statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P. 5. He also recovered the inland letter, Exhibit P. 6 under Exhibit P. 7 mahazar. Exhibits P. 5 to P. 7 were attested by P.W. 6. He obtained from the accused his specimen handwriting, marked as exhibit P. 9, He caused the same and Exhibit P. 6 to be sent to the Document Expert for the purpose of examination. The Accused took P.W. 12 to Viyalmoor village. The time was then 5 P.M. The accused took out MO 3 hacksaw blade and MO 4 series, keys with chain kept concealed in a bush near the house of one Ramadoos Pillai and they were seized under Exhibit P. 3 Mahazar attested by P.Ws. 4 and 5. On 6-11-1986, he appeared to have seized MO 1 shirt and MO 2 dhoti worn by the accused from the accused. On that date itself he sent the material objects to Court with a requisition, Exhibit P. 16 for sending them to the Document Expert for the purpose of Examination. On 9-11-1986, he examined P.Ws. 7 and 8.(h) P.W. 9 was the then Scientific Assistant Grade I, Forensic Science Department, Madras-4. On receipt of the requisition, Exhibit P. 8 from the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Porto Novo, he examined the specimen handwriting of the accused under Exhibit P. 9 with his handwriting under Exhibit P. 6. On examination, he found that the person, who wrote Exhibits P. 6 and P. 9 was one and the same and to that effect, he gave a report exhibit P. 10.(i) After completing the formalities of the investigation, P.W. 12 laid a final report under Section 173(2) Crl. P.C. before the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Portonovo against the accused for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) On committal, learned Sessions Judge, framed a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused.