MANI ALIAS LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal are A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.169 of 2002 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court No.3), Namakkal. THEy were tried in that sessions case for offences under Sections 120B, 506(ii) and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. At the end of the trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted A.1 and A.2 under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and convicted A.3 alone under that section. As far as the other charges are concerned, the learned Trial Judge found all the accused guilty under those charges. For the offence of criminal conspiracy, each of the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- carrying a default sentence. Likewise for the capital offence, each one of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- carrying a default sentence. For the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. A.3 stands sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence the sentences stand directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. Heard Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.T.Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) PURSUANT to a criminal conspiracy hatched at about 10.00 a.m. on 11.5.2001 between A.1 to A.3 in their house, which was over heard by P.W.3 as result of which he was criminally intimidated A.1 to A.3 murdered Suriakala and thus punishable for the offences referred to earlier. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 to sustain their case. Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.O.1 came to be marked on the side of the prosecution. The defence examined three witnesses on their side as D.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.3 is stated to be the cousin of Suriakala, since deceased. Apart from giving details of some quarrel between A.1 to A.3 on the one hand and Suriakala on the other hand, which is used to be sorted out by P.W.2, who is none else than the Senior Paternal Aunt of P.W.3, he would state that on the occurrence day he and his mother went to A.1's house where he found the door closed but however the window was kept opened. All the three accused were found chatting inside their house. He over heard them saying that as Suriakala, since deceased is a thorn in their thigh, she must be killed and after killing, it must be made to appear that she committed suicide. A.3 noticed the presence of P.W.3 overhearing and therefore abused him by saying that if he chooses to disclose the conversation which he heard to anybody else, he and his mother would be killed. Out of fear P.W.3 and his mother went to Bhavani and at 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. on that day, news came that Suriakala died. Immediately P.W.3 proceeded to the crime scene where they found Suriakala lying dead bleeding through her nose, ears as well as eyes. He was examined by the police on the date of occurrence and again one month later. P.W.1 is the elder brother of Suriakala. He also deposed that there were quarrels in the family and he used to pacify them. At about 3.45 p.m. on 11.5.2001 when P.W.1 was in his shop, he received a telephone call from A.2 that Suriakala had bolted the door from inside and she is not opening the same and therefore P.W.1 must come immediately to solve the problem. However P.W.1 could not go immediately. At 5.30 p.m. Jinesh (examined as D.W.3 in this case) telephoned to P.W.1 once again stating that he peeped into the house by removing the tiles and he found his mother lying on the floor with her face down and Jinesh requested P.W.1 to come and see immediately. P.W.1 reached the house at 6.15 p.m. where he found the door broke open and the latch broken. On he entering the crime scene he found his sister bleeding through her ear and nose. He sent for a Doctor nearby, who had come and pronounced her dead. When P.W.1 went, A.1 was not there. P.W.1 informed his mother and others about the incident and all of them came at about 7 or 7.15 p.m. They suspected that Suriakala might have been assaulted and tortured. P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint and he identified the signature found in Ex.P.1 as his, which is marked as Ex.P.2. He was examined by the police.

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side we went through the entire records. The prosecution primarily relies upon the evidence of P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer before whom A.1 is stated to have confessed and his confession statement being Ex.P.4. A.1 has been consistently disputing the prosecution case that he confessed before P.W.6 and he also went to the extent of contending that his signature is not found in Ex.P.4. Normally we would have rejected the submission as a self serving statement. But in this case we are unable to do so because as could be seen from the certified copy of the petition in C.M.P.No.34 of 2002 filed in the sessions case, he had taken a definite stand that he had not signed in Ex.P.4 thereby denying his signature itself in Ex.P.4 and as such the Court must give a direction to the Director of Fingerprint Bureau, Chennai to depute one of the handwriting expert to examine the disputed signature with the admitted signature. We are surprised to find that when such a positive step is taken by one of the accused, who is pinned down to the extra judicial confession, to have it examined by an expert, the learned Trial Judge took it so lightly and easily, as a result of which, he did not pass any order on that request namely, either ordering it or rejecting it. The very fact that A.1 had taken such a bold step in moving the learned Trial Judge to get his disputed signature compared with his admitted signature by an expert, would itself show that A.1 was prepared to stick to his stand namely, that he did not sign Ex.P.4. This is a very serious matter especially in a case of murder and therefore we have no hesitation at all to hold that the learned Trial Judge could have taken some more pains and given due attention to the request made by the first accused, so that, once such a comparison is done, it will help the court to decide the case one way or the other. By not taking up the request of the first accused as indicated above for consideration at all, we find that the first accused had been irretrievably prejudiced in the face of his defence that Ex.P.4 does not contain his signature. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to reject the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.P.4 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The suspicious circumstances according to the learned counsel is A.1 alleged to have given the confession statement before P.W.6 one month after the crime and there is no material on record to show that P.W.6 knew A.1 earlier or A.1 had confidence and trust in P.W.6. For all the reasons stated above, we eliminate Ex.P.4 from our consideration.