RANGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapurai made in S.C.No.37 of 2005, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC, tried, found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. and was found not guilty under Section 506(ii) IPC.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: a) THE accused is the husband of deceased Govindammal. THEir marriage took place 1-1/2 years back and the accused had already got married one Sakki and begotten children. THEreafter, he married the deceased Govindammal. He suspected her fidelity that she was having illicit intimacy with his co-brother Muniraj. Hence he decided to finish her off. b) On 3.1.2004 at about 3.00 p.m., when the deceased and P.W.1 was in the land of Subramani, the accused came over and took the stone weighing 20 Kgs. and attacked on her head and the deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. THE accused also intimidated P.W.1. P.W.1 proceeded to her house and informed the matter to her husband P.W.2. Immediately, they tried to meet the Village Administrative Officer, but they could not meet him, since he went for collection. P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer returned at 6.30 p.m. and went to the spot. P.W.1 gave a report, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. Along with P.W.1 and Ex.P.1, the report, P.W.6 went to the respondent police station and handed over Ex.P.1, the report to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the report, registered the case in Crime No.6 of 2004 under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC. Ex.P.15, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.5, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.16, the rough sketch. THE place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.5, the photographer. Ex.P.2 (series) photos and Ex.P.3 (series) negatives were marked. THEn, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. THEn the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. d) P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Pennagaram, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to vital organ, brain about 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. e) Pending investigation, on 4.1.2004, P.W.14 arrested the accused on 4.1.2004 and the accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. THE material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.13, the Chemical Report and Ex.P.14, the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that it is highly doubtful whether Ex.P.1, the statement could have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution that according to P.W.1, first she went to her house and informed to her husband P.W.2 and P.W.2 went to the place of Village Administrative Officer, but P.W.1 did not accompany him that apart from that, she has further deposed that the accused has actually went to the police station on the very day that if really the accused involved in the crime, he would not have been available at the place of occurrence and he could not have gone to the police station, but he has gone to the police station on the very day that the claim of the Investigator was that the accused was arrested on the next day that was on 4.1.2004 and gave confessional statement, which were nothing but false and hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.