RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Puducherry made in S.C.No.71 of 2005, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 449, 302 and 382 IPC, tried, found guilty under Sections 448 and 302 IPC and awarded 3 months R.I. under Section 448 IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. under Section 302 IPC and the accused was found not guilty under Section 382 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 deceased Dhanam @ Dhanalakshmi was residing at Door No.37, Main Road, Poyyakulam, Pakkamudaiyanpet, Puducherry within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. P.W.3 used to visit the house of the deceased often. On 27.11.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., when she visited her house, she found the dead body of Dhanalakshmi. Immediately, she informed to P.W.2, who is running a Video and Photo Studio shop adjacent to the house of the deceased. In turn, he informed P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, who visited the spot, found the dead body of her mother and also found that the nose stud and ear stud were missing. Immediately, she proceeded to the respondent police station, gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on the strength of the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.258 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.17, the express F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. b)P.W.13, 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 the observation mahazar and Ex.P.18, the rough sketch. THEreafter, sniffer dog was called and finer print experts were also called. THE Finger print experts took the finger prints. THE place of occurrence and the dead body were photographed through P.W.14, the photographer. Ex.P.25 (series), photos and Ex.P.26 (series) negatives were marked. P.W.13 recovered material objects from the place of occurrence. THEreafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.19, the inquest report. THEn, the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. c)P.W.10, the Doctor attached to the Government General Hospital, Puducherry, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.13, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. d)At the time of investigation, P.W.4 gave statement that he saw the accused coming from the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence. On 29.11.2003, the accused was arrested and he came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.20. THEreafter, he took the police party to P.W.8, the Pawn Broker, from whom M.O.1, ear studs, M.Os.2 and 3, nose studs were recovered under Ex.P.10, mahazar. THEreafter, the accused has also produced Ex.P.23, receipt. THEn, he was sent to judicial custody. All the M.Os were sent to the Court. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.

(3.) THE court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.