SHANMUGAPANDIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, the appellant herein, who stood charged under section 302 IPC, tried there under and found guilty as per the charge, awarded life imprisonment and also fine with default sentence, has challenged the judgment made in S. C. No. 35/2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions judge, Dindigul.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) THE accused is the nephew of the deceased. THE deceased was running a tea stall in a poramboke land near the temple in viralipatti. THE family of the accused is having land abutting the tea stall. THEre was a dispute as to the enjoyment of the land between the families. On the day of occurrence, i. e. , 5. 7. 2001, at about 4. 00 p. m. , when P. W. 1, the son of the deceased and P. W. 2, the wife of the deceased, along with the deceased, were in the tea stall, the accused came there and asked the deceased to vacate the tea stall. In reply, the deceased asked the accused as to why he should vacate. Hence, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. THE accused took a knife from his waist and stabbed him on the left side of the neck. Receiving injuries, the deceased ran. He was chased by the accused. When the deceased fell down, the accused gave him more stabs and caused his death. THE occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 4. P. W. 1 took the deceased to Batlagundu government Hospital by a car where P. W. 6, the doctor attached to the Government hospital, declared him dead and a copy of the Accident Register is marked as ex. P. 4. (b) P. W. 1 went to the respondent Police Station and gave a complaint, Ex. P. 1, to P. W. 12, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by the respondent Police Station under section 302 IPC. THE Express F. I. R. , Ex. P. 13, was despatched to the Court. P. W. 13, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex. P. 2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex. P. 14, the rough sketch. He also recovered the material objects including the blood stained earth and sample earth, M. Os. 2 and 3 respectively, under a cover of Mahazar. In the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, P. W. 13 also conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared Ex. P. 15, the Inquest Report. THE dead body was subjected to the postmortem by P. W. 7, the doctor attached to Batlagundu Government Hospital, and ex. P. 6, the postmortem certificate was issued by him, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. (c) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 6. 7. 2004. He volunteered to give a confessional statement in the presence of p. W. 9, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness. THE admissible part of the confessional statement recorded by the investigating officer is marked as Ex. P. 11, pursuant to which, he recovered M. O. 1-blood stained knife, under a cover of mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the blood stained knife, M. O. 1, produced by the accused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department pursuant to a requisition forwarded by the Inspector through the concerned Court which resulted in two reports, viz. , the Chemical Analyst's Report-Ex. P. 9 and the serologist's Report-Ex. P. 10 respectively. (d) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the final report and the case was committed to Court of Sessions. Necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution marched 14 witnesses and also relied upon 15 exhibits and 4 material objects. (e) On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C. , as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. THE Trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, found the accused guilty as per the charge under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) IN the instant case, it is not a fact in controversy that the deceased Thuluvan, the husband of P. W. 1 was done to death in an incident that took place at about 4. 00 p. m. at Viralipatti. The deceased was taken to hospital where he was declared dead by P. W. 8, the doctor, attached to batlagundu Government Hospital. Based on the complaint given by P. W. 1, a case came to be registered by P. W. 12, Sub-INspector of police. On receipt of a copy of the F. I. R. , the INvestigating Officer took up investigation, conducted inquest on the dead body and P. W. 8, the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. The fact that he died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the accused at any point of time and thus, the prosecution has proved the said fact.