ASOKAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the learned Principal sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram made in S. C. No. 57 of 2004, the appellant herein, who stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried, found guilty and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo six months ri, has brought forth this appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case can be stated thus: a) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased Alagarsamy. THE accused is the father of the deceased. P. W. 3 is the wife of the accused. P. W. 2 is the neighbour. During the relevant time, P. W. 1 was pregnant by 9 months. THE ceremony of wearing bangles was to be celebrated. THE deceased was demanding money from his father. THE father refused to give and that the deceased got angry. Immediately, he pushed his father down. At that time, there was a wordy dual, in which the accused took the stick, M. O. 1, found nearby and attacked the deceased on his head and on different parts of his body. THE occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others. THE accused left the place of occurrence. b) Immediately, P. W. 1 and others took the injured to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram and he was admitted in the hospital by P. W. 7, the Doctor at about 4. 20 p. m. P. W. 7 gave treatment to the injured and gave Ex. P. 5, the accident register. He further advised that the injured should be taken to the Government Hospital , Madurai. Accordingly, he was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital , where P. W. 8, the Doctor has given treatment to him. Despite treatment, he died at about 3. 30 p. m. on 11. 7. 2003. c) Further, intimation was given to the respondent police at 17. 15 hours. On receipt of the intimation on 11. 7. 2003 at 17. 15 hours, p. W. 14, the Head Constable along with the Inspector of Police, went to the rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and took Ex. P. 1, the complaint of P. W. 1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in crime No. 194 of 2003. Ex. P. 11, the FIR was despatched to the Court. d) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P. W. 16, the inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex. P. 9, the observation mahazar and Ex. P. 14, the rough sketch. THEn, he went to the Rajaji government Hospital, Madurai and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared ex. P. 15, the inquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy along with the requisition. e) P. W. 10, the Doctor attached to the Madurai Medical college Hospital, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex. P. 8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries. f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 14. 7. 2003 in the presence of the witnesses. He voluntarily gave a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex. P. 3. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced m. O. 1, stick to the Investigator, which was recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. All the M. Os recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M. O. 1 recovered from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department. Ex. P. 6 is the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex. P. 10 is the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the deceased was referred to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, where he was admitted and despite treatment, he died at 3. 30 p. m. on 11. 7. 2003; that though there were communications received by the respondent police, no steps were taken to register the case; that according to the prosecution, he died at 3. 30 p. m. ; that after the intimation was received by the respondent police, the inspector of Police went over to the hospital and recorded the statement of p. W. 1, which was marked as Ex. P. 1 and the case came to be registered at about 5. 15 p. m. ; that the occurrence has taken place on 10. 7. 2003 at 4. 00 p. m. and the case came to be registered by the police on the information received by them on 12. 7. 2003 at 4. 00 a. m. ; and that the delay, which remained unexplained, was fatal to the prosecution case.