SIVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.461 of 2004, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) P.W.1 is the younger brother of P.W.2. THE deceased Sathyakumar, aged 3 years, is the son of P.W.1. P.W.11 is the minor daughter of P.W.2. All of them were living at Shetshop line, Chromepet. During the relevant time, P.W.1 was living with his wife Jyothi. THE accused and P.W.1 studied together. Even before the marriage of P.W.1, the accused married one Velankanni. THE said Velankanni was running a chit shop, in which P.W.1 was the subscriber. After chit transaction was over, he was demanding money, but she did not pay it back. On the contrary, she took him to many theatres. One day, she took him to the house of P.W.4. P.W.1 originally had illicit intimacy with P.W.4. THEreafter, P.W.1 arranged the marriage of P.W.4 with one Chandiran. b) Before the occurrence, when P.W.1 and Velankanni went to the house of P.W.4, Velankanni informed him that she had no male born and her husband was not competent and hence P.W.1 should give her a male child. Accordingly, P.W.1 and Velankanni shared the bed, which came to the knowledge of P.W.4 later. When P.W.4 met the accused, she informed about the same. THE accused and his wife Velankanni had quarrel over the same. At that time, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused in respect of his business. On seeing him, the accused shouted and drove him out. c) P.W.3 is the resident of Shetshop line and he was attached to Christian faith and church. On evening hours of every Friday, he used to do prayer and for that prayer, people used to attend. On 29.10.1999 at about 7.00 p.m., when Velankanni and the accused went there, they found P.W.1 along with his son Sathyakumar. THE wife of the accused was calling the child and the accused got angry over the same and he took her home. Following the same, on the date of occurrence that was on 31.10.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., when Sathyakumar and P.W.11 were playing in the street, the accused came over there and gave Re.1/- to P.W.11 telling that she would get chocolate and asked her to go. THEreafter, he took the child Sathyakumar on his shoulder and went away. THEreafter, the child was not seen. d) All were searching for the child. P.W.2 on 1.11.1999 at about 6.30 a.m. went to attend the nature's call in the open ground at Rangasamy Street. At that time, he witnessed that the dead body of the child Sathyakumar was floating in the Well. Immediately, he informed P.W.1, who had also verified the same. He proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of Ex.P.1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.649 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.5, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. e) P.W.12, 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.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report. THEn, the dead body of the child was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. f) P.W.10, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tambaram at Chromepet, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.12, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to drowning. g) P.W.12, after receiving the opinion from the post-mortem Doctor, altered the case into Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.15, the alteration report was sent to the Court. On 6.11.1999, he arrested the accused, who has come forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.3. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.2, towel, which was recovered under Ex.P.4, the mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. THE statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.

(3.) THE court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.