KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUMAR, appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC , for having caused the death of one Ashok KUMAR. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE factual details, leading to the conviction, are as follows: " (a ) THE deceased Ashok Kumar and the accused/appellant Kumar were residing in the same village by name Vaaranavasi. THE deceased developed illicit intimacy with one Rama , wife of the accused. Aggrieved over this, the accused reported the matter to the Panchayatdars. A panchayat was convened and, after panchayat , the accused and his wife decided not to stay any more in the village. Accordingly, they left the village, came and stayed in Saidapet , Chennai. (b) Both the accused and his wife were working in MEPZ Complex. Wife was working in a shoe company and husband was working with a different concern. (c) THE fateful occurrence had taken place on 24. 03. 1998. THE accused came to the shop situated in MEPZ Complex on a cycle along with his wife. After leaving the wife in her shop, the accused was about to go to his shop. At that time, he happened to see the deceased Ashok Kumar sitting on a cement slab, situated just opposite to the shop in which Rama , wife of the accused, was working, He also noticed that deceased went and talked to the wife of the accused. THErefore, the accused took a weapon M. O. 1,'l'shaped angle rod, and attacked the deceased on head and face. (d) P. W. 1, driver, immediately went to the Police Station for giving a complaint. (e) P. Ws. 2 and 3, who happened to be the Security officers working in the same complex, took the victim with bleeding injuries to Government Hospitalat Chromepet. (f) P. W. 9, doctor, after giving treatment, issued wound certificate Ex. P-4 and referred the victim to General Hospital, chennai. (g) In the meantime, P. W. 12, Sub-Inspector of Police, received a complaint from P. W. 1 and registered a case against the accused for the offence under Sections 307 and 506 (II) IPC. (h) P. W. 13, Inspector of Police, after receipt of the report, which has been registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC , came to the scene, observed all the formalities and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. THEreafter, the deceased, who was taken to General Hospital , chennai, died at about 12. 12 hours on 24/25. 03. 1998. THErefore, he sent an alteration report, converting the offence into 302 IP C. On 25. 03. 1998 at about 01. 00 a. m. , he arrested the accused and, in pursuance of the confession made by the accused, he recovered M. O. 1,'l'shaped angle rod. THEreafter, he conducted inquest between 08. 30 a. m. and 10. 30 a. m. and sent the dead body for post-mortem. ( i ) P. W. 10, doctor, who conducted post-mortem, found 11 injuries on the dead body and issued post-mortemcertificate, Ex. P-7. He gave an opinion that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhag e , due to head injuries. (j) THE material objects were sent for chemical examination. (k) After completion of the investigation, P. W. 13 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IP C. "

(3.) ON these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor.