VELU ALIAS RAVICHANDRAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by A-1 Velu @ Ravichandran and A-2 Veeramani challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, dated 27.03.2006 made in S.C.No.394 of 2004 convicting the first appellant under Section 341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and convicting him under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and convicting the second appellant (A-2) for the offence under Section 341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and also convicting him under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution version as unfolded during the course of trial through the evidence adduced by the prosecution is as follows :(i) P.W.1 is the sister-in-law of the deceased, Arumugam. P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased and husband of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.6. THE deceased is the brother-in-law of P.W.7. THE deceased was working at Saudi Arabia and returned to his village, namely, Agaram on leave on 12.04.2004. He has started construction of a new house at Kosavanpettai. THE deceased was staying in the house of P.W.1. A-1's house was situated adjacent to the house site of the deceased, wherein, the new house construction was going on. A-1 was working as Mason in the construction of the new house of the deceased. A-1's wife one Jeya used to meet the deceased frequently and she used to give juice and eatables to the deceased and she used to chat with the deceased. Two months prior to the occurrence, A-1 was said to have seen his wife, Jeya, with the deceased, Arumugam, as both of them were talking with each other and suspecting her fidelity, A-1 beat his wife, Jeya and sent her to her parental house. Due to such enmity, A-1 was threatening to kill the deceased with the help of hirelings. P.W.14 pacified A-1. THEreafter, A-1 was stating that the deceased pulled the hands of his wife and as such he would not leave him without killing him. (ii) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 11.09.2004 at 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 prepared the tiffen and gave it to the deceased and to other Masons. THE deceased was proceeding in his cycle and P.W.1 followed him. While the deceased was nearing Maha Sakthi Mariamman Temple near the house of President one Perumal, A-2 was proceeding in a cycle and A-1 was sitting in the carrier of the cycle as pillion-rider. A-1 intercepted the deceased and cut the deceased with a knife on his neck, cheek and forehand repeatedly. P.W.1 raised hue and cry. A-1 took the knife with him and left the scene in the cycle which was ridden by A- 2. P.Ws.2 to 5 said to have witnessed the occurrence. On hearing the hue and cry, P.W.7 informed P.W.6, husband of P.W.1, and thereafter, they came in an auto to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. P.W.6 along with P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital.(iii) THE Doctor, P.W.19, attached to the Government Hospital, Paringipettai, examined the deceased on 11.09.2004 at 11.50 a.m. brought by P.W.6, his brother. On examination, the Doctor, P.W.19, found that the deceased already dead. He sent the body to the mortuary and death intimation, Ex.P.18 to Paringipettai police station. (iv) P.W.1 along with P.W.6, her husband, went to Paringipettai Police Station at 12.15 p.m. on 11.09.2004 and gave the report, Ex.P.1 to P.W.25, the Inspector of Police. He registered the case in Crime No.361 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.13 is the Express First Information Report. He sent the First Information Report to the higher police officials and to the Magistrate Court.(v) P.W.25 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.14 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered from the scene, M.O.3, bloodstained earth, M.O.4, sample earth, M.O.5, wire bag, M.O.6, ever-silver vessel, M.O.7, ever-silver tumblers - 6 Nos., M.O.8, pair of rubber chappel, M.O.9, Atlas cycle under Ex.P.

(3.) 2. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the names of the alleged eye-witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 5 have not been mentioned in the report, Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 and as such it is highly doubtful about the presence of the other eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence. It is contended that P.W.1 has not even mentioned the name of P.W.4, the alleged eye-witness, who is none else than her son. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5 to convict the accused. 5. 3. The learned senior counsel without prejudice to his earlier contention further submitted that even assuming that A-1 has committed the offence, his act would squarely come under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC as the accused could have attacked the deceased only due to grave and sudden provocation. It is submitted that the alleged eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5, have categorically stated that A-1 attacked the deceased as the deceased was having illicit intimacy with his wife, Jeya. It is further submitted that P.W.6, who is none else than the brother of the deceased, has also stated that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with A-1's wife and he has warned the deceased. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the act of the accused would come squarely under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.