SAMRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.31 of 2007 whereby the appellants four in number, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: TABLE

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.1 is a native of Chikkathoranampatti Village. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.1 had three sons, out of whom one was murdered under suspicious circumstances two years prior to the occurrence. THE families of P.W.1 and A-1 had number of civil litigations for decades, and in that, they were on inimical terms. On the date of occurrence namely 17.4.2004, after taking food, P.W.1 went to the farm house where she was sleeping inside, while the deceased Venkatachalam was sleeping outside. At about 1.00 A.M., she had heard the distressing cry. THEn she woke up, came out and saw near the railway track A-1 with a crowbar and A-2 with an iron rod attacking the deceased, while A-3 and A-4 caught hold of him. At that time P.W.2, who also heard the noise, came over there and saw the occurrence. THEreafter, all the four accused fled away from the place of occurrence. (b) P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.3 went in search of the Village Administrative Officer, but they could not found him. THEn, they proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, was on duty, to whom P.W.1 gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.179 of 2004 under Sections 341, 302 and 506(2) of IPC. THEreafter, the printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court, and the same reached the Magistrate concerned at 9.30 A.M. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police concerned, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P13, and a rough sketch, Ex.P14. THEn, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P17. He also recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. THEn, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P2, for the purpose of autopsy. (d) P.W.6, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Palacode, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Venkatachalam and found four external injuries. He has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died at about 36 to 40 hours prior to autopsy and died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the head and injury to the vital organ brain. (e) Pending the investigation, A-1 was arrested on 18.4.2004, and he volunteered to give a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses. THE admissible part is marked as Ex.P10. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, crowbar, and M.O.2, iron rod, and both were recovered under a cover of mahazar. It came to the knowledge of the Investigator that A-2 to A-4 have surrendered before the Court. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department pursuant to the requisition made by the Investigator through the concerned Judicial Magistrate, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P6, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P7, the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 1.30 A.M. on 17.4.2004 but, P.W.10, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has given a categorical evidence before the Court that the deceased died at about 36 to 40 hours prior to autopsy that if this is taken so, the occurrence could have taken place during the day hours of 16.4.2004 and not as put forth by the prosecution namely at 1.30 A.M. on 17.4.2004 that all put together would go to show that the occurrence as narrated by P.W.1, could not have taken place at all that apart from that, there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that it was utter darkness that the farm house of P.W.1 was situated about 300 feet from the railway track that the railway track is also situated at a height of 15 feet that under the circumstances, she could not have seen the occurrence at all that apart from that, it is not the case of the prosecution that light was available, and thus she could not have seen the assailants that according to P.W.2, after hearing the distressing cry of P.W.1, he woke up, went over and saw the occurrence and that the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly indicate that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.