ERUDHAYARAJ ALIAS MACKACHOLAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Madras, in S.C.No.42 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.1 is a resident of Katpada Main Road, Washermenpet. P.W.2 is the son of P.W.3, and they are also residents of adjacent houses. THE accused/appellant is also a neighbour to P.W.3, and P.W.4 is the elder brother of the deceased Nagalingam. THE deceased was also staying along with his relatives namely P.Ws.1 to 3. On the date of occurrence i.e., 6.11.2006, at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and was asking for money from his brother Velavan who is the husband of P.W.3. At that time, P.W.2 came out of the house. THE accused also came out and asked the deceased why he was always creating problems. In turn, the deceased replied that it was a family affair, and he should not interfere. On hearing this, the accused uttered "I know how to deal with this". THEn, he took a knife and stabbed Nagalingam on the left chest. This was actually witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 4. When there was hue and cry, the accused left the place of occurrence. Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 4 and others took the victim to the Government Stanley Hospital, where P.W.13 was the Doctor in charge. It was he who admitted the victim at 4.10 P.M., and the statement of the victim was recorded by him. THE same is found in the accident register copy marked as Ex.P13. (b) On receipt of the information at 5.00 P.M., P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to H1 Washermenpet Police Station, went to the hospital and took the statement of the deceased. THE signature of the deceased in the complaint is marked as Ex.P2. On the strength of the said complaint, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.843 of 2006 under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) of IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court. THE further treatment was given by P.W.14, the Doctor, who conducted operation on Nagalingam. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, H1 Washermenpet Police Station, took up investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and a rough sketch, Ex.P3. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence and went to the Government Stanley Hospital. He recorded the statement of the deceased which was also placed before the Court. (d) On receipt of an intimation, P.W.8, the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, proceeded to the hospital and the deceased Nagalingam was identified but, he could not record his statement since he was unconscious. THE report given by him, is marked as Ex.P7. (e) While the deceased was under treatment, he died on 7.11.2006. Following the same, the case was altered to Sec.302 of I.P.C. THE express report, Ex.P19, was despatched to the Court. THEn, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P20. He also gave a requisition to the hospital authorities for conduct of autopsy. (f) P.W.15, the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Medical College, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nagalingam and issued Ex.P15, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury on the left side of the chest. (g) Pending the investigation, the Investigator came to know that the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottriyur. THEn, the police custody was asked for, and as per the request, it was ordered. He was taken to police custody on 10.11.2006. At the time of interrogation, the accused gave a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P7. He also produced bloodstained shirt and also a lungi which were recovered under another mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand again. (h) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also the material objects which were recovered from the accused on production, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P16, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P17, the Serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, according to the evidence of P.W.8, the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, he proceeded to the hospital at about 11.40 P.M., and he could not record the dying declaration of the deceased Nagalingam since he was unconscious but, according to P.W.13, the Doctor, the deceased Nagalingam was first seen by him at 4.10 P.M. that it could be well seen that Nagalingam could not have taken liquor in the hospital that the occurrence should have taken place at 4.00 P.M. And he should have taken liquor earlier to the occurrence that if to be so, when the Metropolitan Magistrate has seen him at about 11.40 P.M., the liquor should have become subsided but, the Magistrate has found him unconscious that it would be quite clear that even before 4.10 P.M., when he was seen by P.W.13, the Doctor, he would have been unconscious that under the circumstances, the statement of the Doctor as found in Ex.P13, the accident register copy, as if he gave the statement to him and the case of the prosecution that it was he who gave the complaint to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, H1 Washermenpet Police Station, and thereafter, to the Inspector of Police, P.W.17, were all nothing but false introduction, and they have got to be rejected.