SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the learned Principal sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram made in S. C. No. 39 of 2004, the sole accused/appellant, on being found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo six months ri, has brought forth this criminal appeal.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: a) P. W. 1 is the son of the deceased Kamala. THE accused is the brother of the deceased. THEy are the residents of Velanoor. In respect of an enjoyment of poramboke land, there has been all along quarrel and tussle between the accused and the deceased. P. W. 1 was actually employed in Madras . During the relevant time, he came to his native place and on the date of occurrence, he was available in his native place. b) On 31. 5. 2003 at about 4. 15 p. m. , P. W. 1 and his mother had travelled in a mini bus to Keelakarai and in the same bus, the accused was also travelling and they were sitting apart. When the bus was nearing the house of one Selvakumar, the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her indiscriminately and she died instantaneously inside the bus itself. Immediately, the accused got down from the bus and ran away. THE occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 6. c) P. W. 1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex. P. 1, the report to P. W. 16, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 17. 30 hours on 31. 5. 2003, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No. 191 of 2003 under Section 302 ipc. Ex. P. 12, the FIR was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate court. d) P. W. 17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex. P. 3, the observation mahazar and Ex. P. 14, the rough sketch. He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. THEn, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 13, the inquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition. e) P. W. 8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, keelakarai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He has issued Ex. P. 5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. f) Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that the accused surrendered before the court on 4. 6. 2003. He filed an application for police custody and the same was ordered. On 14. 6. 2003, the accused voluntarily gave a confessional statement, which was marked as Ex. P. 8. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M. O. 1 aruval, which was recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. All the M. Os recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material object recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science department, which resulted in two reports. Ex. P. 6 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex. P. 7 is the Serologist's report. g) P. W. 18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before the Court.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the ocular testimony did not support the medical evidence; that in the instant case, actually the accused surrendered before the court; that the police custody was ordered; that the fact that the accused came forward to give confessional statement and on the basis of the confessional statement, M. O. 1, aruval was recovered were nothing but an invented story to suit the prosecution case, if possible, but it is highly unbelievable and hence, the lower court should have rejected the case of prosecution.