PALANIVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.126 of 2007, dated 31.7.2007.M. Chockalingam, J.Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.126 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 506(i) IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 2 years R.I. under Section 506(i) IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:a) THE accused/appellant is the son of the deceased. On 15.8.2006 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer along with the others was measuring the landed property at Mettukuppam village, he heard a distressing cry and immediately, he saw the spot, where the accused attacked his father and when the same was questioned, the accused replied that it is family matter and others should not interfere. This was witnessed not only by P.W.7, but also by P.Ws.1,3,4,5,6 and also 11,12 and 13 and as a result of which, the deceased died. b) At about 18.00 hours on the same day, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.9 complaint with the respondent police. On the strength of Ex.P.9, P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.257 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.10, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) P.W.15, 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.7, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch. On 16.8.2006, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Panruti and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.12, the inquest report. THEn, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.d) P.W.2, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.2, the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P.4, final opinion, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Further the internal organs of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Laboratory and the report was marked as Ex.P.3, stating that there was no poisonous substance on the dead body.e) Pending investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused at about 12.30 hours in the presence of P.W.8 and the other witness. THE accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.5, pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.1, teak wooden log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. THEn, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Department pursuant to the requisition given through the concerned Court. Ex.P.17, Chemical report and Ex.P.18, the Serologist's report were received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Senior counsel that while number of witnesses were present according to the prosecution, no one has come forward to state about the occurrence and the reason being they have not actually seen the occurrence that since P.W.7 happened to be the Village Administrative Officer, his service was taken to sustain the prosecution case and under these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely on his evidence that further, the group test did not tally as per the Chemical analysis and even assuming that there was recovery of M.O.1 weapon of crime pursuant to the confessional statement, the mere recovery by itself would not be sufficient to sustain conviction and under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.