NALLAIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu, made in S.C.No.167 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty for a charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 knew both the deceased Shanthi and her husband, the accused/appellant. At the time of occurrence, P.W.1 was working as a Security in Patni Computer and the construction work was going on. THE accused was working as a maistry, and his wife was working as a helper to the masons. On 26.7.2005 at about 9.00 P.M., there was a wordy quarrel between the spouses. On the next day that was on 27.7.2005, at about 7.00 A.M., there was a wordy altercation between them in the residence. Pursuant to the wordy altercation, the accused stabbed her with a knife, and when she tried to ward it off, she sustained injury on her hand and neck, and she fell down with bleeding injuries. THEn the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. THE occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint on the strength of which P.W.6, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty, registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2005 under Sec.307 of IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P7, was despatched to the Court. (b) P.W.8, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation. He received an intimation, Ex.P9, that she died in the hospital. THEn, the case was altered to Sec.302 of IPC. THE alteration report, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court. THEn, P.W.8 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P12. He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence. THEn, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P11. A requisition was forwarded to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem. (c) P.W.7, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shanthi and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. (d) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested at 11.00 A.M. on 28.7.2005. He also gave a confessional statement which was recorded. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. THEn, he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis. Ex.P15 is the biological report, and Ex.P16 is the serological report. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through P.W.1, did not get corroboration from the medical opinion canvassed through P.W.7, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body that apart from that, the arrest, confession and recovery are all nothing but a cooked up affair in order to suit the prosecution story, and hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.