RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE,REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.155 of 2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC. By judgement dated 22.12.2016, the trial Court convicted him under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 294(b) IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

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

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgement. The accused denied the same. The trial Court proceeded with the trial. During the trial, in order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined, 15 documents and 3 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined as eyewitnesses. But, P.W.3 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the daughter-in-law of the deceased, have spoken about the entire occurrence in a vivid fashion. P.W.1 has spoken about the complaint made to the police also. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and a rough sketch, at the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Sirkali Government Hospital. P.W.6 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Puducherry Be Well Hospital. He has stated that on 6.7.2013, at 1.30 p.m., against the medical advise, the attenders took the deceased to their house. P.W.7 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the confession made and the consequential recovery of the aruval, at his instance. P.W.9 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.10, a Constable, has stated that he handed over the FIR to the learned Magistrate. P.W.11, a Constable, has stated that he handed over the dead body to the Doctor for post-mortem. P.Ws.12 and 13 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.