DEVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, sole accused in S.C.No.367 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, stands convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for causing the death of one Kamala and for causing injuries to P.W.2 in the same transaction. On being convicted, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307, IPC and the said sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under. (a) THE deceased and P.W.2 are husband and wife. THE accused is their neighbour. P.W.2, Revenue Inspector, was constructing a house at Pennagaram, by engaging P.W.7, Contractor, through whom, P.W.6, Mason was employed to raise the compound wall. THE said construction was objected to by the appellant on the ground that his land was encroached by P.W.2, which turned into a wordy quarrel and made the deceased to claim that the construction of compound wall was being made in their land. On questioning the accused as to why he was objecting to the construction of the compound wall, the appellant got annoyed and declaring that he could not live in his land peacefully unless he would do away with the deceased and P.W.2, took Soorikathi, M.O.1 from his waist and stabbed the deceased on the left side of her chest. When P.W.2 questioned the attack of the appellant on the deceased, the appellant stating that he would also do away with him, inflicted stab injury on P.W.2 on his left side chest with M.O.1. THEreafter, the appellant left the scene of occurrence stating that he would do the same to P.W.1, brother of the deceased and P.W.4, daughter of the deceased and P.W.2. (b) THE public, who gathered at the scene of occurrence, took the deceased and P.W.2 to the hospital at Pennagaram, where, P.W.3, Doctor declared that the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital and gave first aid to P.W.2. THEreafter, P.W.2 was admitted in the Government Hospital at Dharmapuri. (c) P.W.1, brother of the deceased and eye witness to the occurrence, lodged a complaint Ex.P1 on the file of Pennagaram Police Station at about 2 pm. In his evidence, he deposed about the about the occurrence due to the land dispute between the deceased and P.W.2 and the appellant. (d) P.W.4, daughter of the deceased and P.W.2, also speaks about the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and the attack of the appellant. (e) P.W.5, an auto driver, took the deceased to the hospital in his auto. But, he was treated as hostile witness. (f) P.W.6, Mason, who constructed the compound wall in the land of P.W.2 and the deceased, based on the instruction of P.W.7, is an eye-witness to the occurrence. (g) P.W.7, Contractor, deposed that when he went to the place of occurrence at about 1 pm on the date of occurrence, he was informed by the public that the appellant stabbed the deceased and P.W.2. (h) P.W.15, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.945 of 2001 under Sections 302 and 307, IPC and forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police. (i) THE then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the FIR, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3.45 pm, where he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P17. He collected M.Os.5 and 6 under a mahazar, Ex.P6, attested by the witnesses. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex.P18 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over, he prepared Ex.P7, requisition, and handed over the same as well as the body of the deceased to a police constable, P.W.13, requesting the doctor to conduct autopsy. He recorded the statements of P.W.1 and others. (j) On receipt of Ex.P7, requisition for post mortem, P.W.10, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage especially due to injury to vital organs, viz. heart and lung. Ex.P8 is the post mortem certificate. (k) In the meantime, the then Inspector of Police arrested the appellant and enquired him in the presence of P.W.8 and another. THE appellant gave voluntary statement in the presence of P.W.8. THE admissible portion of the statement is Ex.P4. Based on the statement of the appellant, M.O.1 was recovered under mahazar, Ex.P5. He collected the blood stained clothing of the deceased, M.Os.2 to 4 under Ex.P31, after completion of the post mortem. He recorded the statements of P.W.10, Medical Officer who conducted post mortem, P.W.14, Constable who handed over the express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate and P.W.13, Constable who carried the body for post mortem. He sent the material objects to Court with a requisition, Ex.P10 to send them for chemical analysis. P.W.12 is the Head Clerk, who submitted the articles for chemical analysis. Ex.P12 is the chemical analysis report and Ex.P13 is the serologist report. (l) As the then Inspector of Police was transferred on 25.1.2002, the investigation was taken over by P.W.17. P.W.17 recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also recorded the statements of P.W.16, Doctor who treated P.W.2 and issued Ex.P16, wound certificate and P.W.11, Doctor who examined the injuries on P.W.2 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P9. (m) On completion of the investigation, P.W.17 filed the final report against the appellant under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. THE case was committed to Court of Sessions and charges were framed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial. (n) THE appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances appeared against him, to which, the accused denied. Neither any witness was examined nor any documentary evidence was produced on his side. (o) THE learned trial judge, on perusal of the materials, oral and documentary and after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides and also perused the entire materials available on record.