PACHAIYAPPAN @ RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.86 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, at Poonamallee. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 30.09.2013, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge against the accused, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 19 documents were exhibited besides 16 material objects. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the son of the deceased, had stated that he came to know, on 5.6.2011, at 7.00 a.m. that the dead body of his father was found in Thiruverkadu lake. Then, he made a complaint to the police. P.W.2, is the yet another son of the deceased. He has also stated that he heard about the death of the deceased and found the dead body. P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has also stated that, on 5.6.2011, at 7.00 a.m., she heard that the dead body of the deceased was found in the lake; she went there and found the dead body. P.W.4 is a villager, he has stated that on 5.6.2011, at 11.00 a.m., he went to the place of occurrence, where he witnessed the preparation of the observation mahazar, the rough sketch and the recovery of material objects. P.W.5 is a star witness for the prosecution, who has stated that on 4.6.2011 at 11.00 p.m., the accused and the deceased were fully drunk and at the drunken state, the accused slapped the deceased once and thereafter, they went together, towards Ayappakkam. On the next day morning at 10.00 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found. P.W.6, has stated the same fact, as spoken by P.W.5. P.W.7 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted by him. He has stated that there were human blood on all the material objects. P.W.8 has spoken about the fact that he took the dead body to the hospital and handed over the same for post-mortem. P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.9, the stone and M.Os.10 and 11, the shirt and the pant. P.W.11, the learned Magistrate has stated that she recorded the statements of certain witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.12 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.Ws.14 and 15 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.