GUBENDRAN .. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, in a case of murder, who stood charged tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and who was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 201, I.P.C. has brought forth this appeal in his attempt to assail the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul dated 23.01.2002 in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2001.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: P.W.1 Sirumani is the wife of the deceased Anthony. Anthony was employed as watchman under P.W.3 Kulandairaj a Contractor. P.W.3 undertook contract work from the Assistant Director of Agricultural Department for constructing officer building at Vedasendur. The accused was also working as fitter under P.W.3. The accused was in the habit of stealing iron rods, cement, etc. When it was noticed by the deceased then and there the accused was warned by him that he should not do so. Since the deceased was causing hindrance for his unlawful activities, the accused had decided to do away the deceased. On 01.08.1998 at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was lying on the cot in the thatched shed which was put up near the construction site, the accused came over there and there was a quarrel between them. Following the same the accused took out the lungi worn by the deceased around his neck and strangulated him and in order to screen the offence he dragged dead body near the staircase and covered the same with sand. At about 9.15 p.m. on 01.08.1998 P.W.4 who was running a tea shop on his way from buying milk for his tea shop, heard some noise inside the newly constructed building went inside saw both the deceased and the accused were quarreling with each other, intervened, pacified them and went away. At about 11.00 p.m. on the same day P.W.8, a flower merchant, from whom the deceased used to purchase flowers daily, came to the scene of occurrence for collecting amount from the deceased and found the accused alone and asked him about the deceased for which, the accused replied that the deceased went to Dindigul. In between the time gap of arrival of P.Ws.4 and 8 the occurrence had taken place. Next day morning P.W.1 and P.W.2 son of P.W.1 came to the construction building where the deceased was not found and hence P.W.1 returned to home. On 04.08.1998 at 4.00 p.m. P.W.6, Antony who was working as Maistry under P.W.3 and others smelt some foul smell near the staircase. Hence, P.W.6 decided to inform about the same to P.W.3 Contractor. As P.W.3 went to Mullipadi to attend funeral rites of his grandmother P.W.6 went to Mullipadi and informed about the foul smell to P.W.3 and as it was night time, P.W.3 told P.W.6 that it will be looked into tomorrow. On 05.08.1998 morning P.Ws.3 and 6 and others found a dead body under the staircase. At that time P.Ws.1 and 2 were also present in the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 and others identified that it was the body of the deceased. Immediately she along with P.W.2 went to the police station and gave a complaint.

(3.) P .W.13, Sub -Inspector of Police, recorded a statement given by P.W.1 and reduced it into writing. The said statement is Ex.P1. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No. 590 of 1998 under Section 302, I.P.C. and prepared a printed first information report Ex.P8. Ex.P8 was sent to the Court as well as to the higher police officials. On receipt of Ex.P8 P.W.14, Inspector of Police Vedasandur Circle took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 3.15 p.m. on 05.08.1998 and in the presence of P.W.10 Village Administrative Officer Vedasandur and another, he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P6 and a rough sketch Ex.P9. He caused the scene of occurrence and dead body to be photographed through P.W.9. M.Os.3 and 4 are photoes and negatives respectively. Following the same he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars prepared Ex.P.10 inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem through a police constable.