RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.278 of 2002, whereby, the appellant/A-1 along with two other accused ranked as A-2 and A-3 stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, this appeal has been brought forth by the appellant/A-1.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:- i.P.W.1 is a resident of Errapatti. P.W.2 is his father. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. Chetti alias Vediappan, the deceased in the case, is the brother of P.W.1. In front of the house of A-1, P.W.1 was running a petty shop and this was objected to by A-1. A Panchayat was convened, wherein it was decided that since the land, in which, P.W.1 was running a petty shop, belongs to Highways Department, P.W.1 need not remove the shop and despite the same, the quarrel continued. Whenever the quarrel ensued, the deceased used to intervene in the quarrel and talk in favour of his brother, P.W.1. A-1 warned the deceased on number of occasions and informed P.W.1 also that if his brother continued to do so, one day he will finish him off. ii.On the date of occurrence, viz., 22.4.1994 at about 8.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 witnessed all the three accused along with the deceased went to the Brandy shop of A-3 and consumed liquor. At that time, P.W.1 asked the deceased to go to the house. THEreafter, all the three accused took the deceased to a temple and on the 'Balipeeda' the deceased was done to death and thereafter, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. This was witnessed by P.Ws.5 and 6. iii.According to P.W.1, on the next day morning at about 10.00 a.m. he saw his brother, the deceased, lying dead with injuries. THEreafter, he went to the Village Administrative Officer and gave a report, Ex.P-1. THE Village Administrative Officer went to Papparapatti Police Station and gave a complaint at 11.30 a.m. on 23.4.1994 to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at that time, on the strength of which, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.330 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-16 is the printed first information report. Exs.P-1 and P-16 were sent to Court as well as to the higher officials. iv.Investigation in this case was taken up by the Inspector of Police, Papparapatti Police Station, who, on receipt of the first information report, took up investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence at 1.00 p.m., made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-2, and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-17. He also recovered the material objects including the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. on 23.4.2002, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-18, the inquest report. THEreafter, the dead body was sent with a requisition to the doctor for conducting post-mortem. v.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.8, the doctor, attached to Government Hospital, Dharmpuri, conducted autopsy on the dead body and gave his opinion in Ex.P-9, the post-mortem certificate, opining that the deceased died due to respiratory arrest due to the injuries to the spinal cord. vi.During investigation, the Investigator examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He also recovered the material objects, which were produced by the Police Constable, under Form-95. THEreafter, he came to know that on 25.4.1994, A-3 in this case surrendered before the Court. On 2.5.1994 at about 3.0 p.m., A-2 in this case was arrested by the Investigator in the presence of witnesses and when questioned, A-2 volunteered to give a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.P-4 and pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.9, Koduval, which was seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-5. On the same day, the Investigator arrested A-1 at Pallipatti Bus Stop. THEreafter, both A-1 and A-2 were brought to the police station and later, they were sent for judicial custody. THE investigator obtained police custody of A-3 and when questioned, A-3 gave a confessional statement and the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.P-6, pursuant to which, he produced a blood-stained shirt, which was also recovered. THEreafter, all the material objects, which were recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body and which were produced by the accused, pursuant to their confession statements, were all sent to Court to subject them for chemical analysis and accordingly, Exs.P-13, the Chemical Analyst's report and P-14, the Serologist's report were obtained. On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed the final report on 22.11.1996.

(3.) IN the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on the direct evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are the alleged eye witnesses. According to P.Ws.5 and 6, while A-1 catching hold of the hands of the deceased and A-2 catching hold of the legs of the deceased, A-3 attacked him with a koduval on his head and neck and caused his death. Both P.W.5 and 6 have turned hostile. Thus, the prosecution could not rely on the direct evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6.