UTHIRASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal stands convicted in s. C. No. 250/2005 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Salem under sections 302, 307 and 324 I. P. C. , for which, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, carrying a default sentence; seven years rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, carrying a default sentence and six months simple imprisonment respectively. Hence he is before this court in this appeal challenging his conviction. Heard mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and mr. N. R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, at about 7. 30 p. m on 14. 01. 2005, the accused, in the context of his prior enmity with the victim, fatally attacked Ragupathi resulting in his death and therefore triable under section 302 I. P. C. In the course of the same transaction, when the witnesses stepped in to intervene, he made an attempt on the life of P. W. 2 and attacked p. W. 4 and therefore triable under sections 307 and 324 I. P. C respectively. To prove their case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 21, besides marking exs. P. 1 to P. 33 and M. Os. 1 to 18. THE defence neither let in any oral nor documentary evidence.

(3.) P. W. 20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating Police Station. At about 8. 00 p. m on 14. 01. 2005, a person, without disclosing his identity, telephoned to him that the accused had murdered Raghupathy; attacked Gunavathi (P. W. 2) and Rakkiappa Gounder (P. W. 4 ). He made an entry in the general diary and then he proceeded to the crime scene accompanied by a police constable. He verified from the crime scene whether the information received by him is correct. Then by examining P. W. 1, he recorded her statement. He came back to the police station and recorded that complaint as Ex. P. 1 in Crime No. 9/2005 under sections 302, 307 and 324 I. P. C. Ex. P. 30 is the printed first information report. He sent the express records to the court as well as to the higher officials. P. W. 21 is the Investigating Officer, who received the express records registered by P. W. 20. He reached the crime scene at 00. 45 a. m on 15. 01. 2005 i. e. , on the intervening night of 14. 01. 2005 and 15. 02. 2005 and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared Ex. P. 31, the rough sketch. From 2. 15 a. m till 7. 15 a. m. , he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Ex. P. 32 is the inquest report. Then he sent the dead body with a requisition to the hospital for post mortem. During inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5 and others by recording their statements. He sent P. W. 4 with a police medical memo to the Government Hospital at Mettur for treatment. At 7. 20 a. m. , from the place where the dead body was found lying, he recovered M. O. 14 under a mahazar. At 8. 00 a. m. , from the place where Ragupathi came to be attacked, he recovered blood stained earth, sample earth and blood stained stone under a mahazar attested by the same witnesses. At 8. 30 a. m. , from opposite to the house of P. W. 2, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar. At 8. 45 a. m. , from near the house of p. W. 4, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar. By using a swab, he collected blood from the wound of P. W. 4. He proceeded to the hospital by 12. 00 noon and by examining P. W. 2, he recorded her statement. He recovered a blood stained blouse and saree produced by her at that time in the presence of witnesses under a mahazar. All the case properties were sent to the court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.