STATE Vs. PARUVATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Sessions Division, Tiruvannamalai made in S.C.No.67 of 2003, whereby the respondents 6 in number stood charged as follows:

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) THE deceased Katturaja is the junior paternal uncle of P.W.1. and he had two wives. THEre was a dispute between one Valakannu @ Parasuraman and A-2. In that matter, it passed an impression in the mind of A-2 that Katturaja was supporting the opposite party and therefore, A-2 and his associates were on inimical terms with the deceased and they were waiting for time to wreak vengeance. Just three months prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between Katturaja and A-2. b) On the date of occurrence that was on 15.4.2002, the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle, in which P.W.10 was to go with him. At that time, on request of A-6, the deceased took A-6 and they were proceeding and it was done pursuant to the plan hatched up by A-6 and the other accused to finish him off. Accordingly, A-6 brought the deceased from Kanthapalayam and on the way, the deceased dropped A-6 and proceeded to his house at Uthangal Odai. At about 9.30 p.m., the first accused armed with a country Gun, A-2 with a knife and A-5 with an iron rod and also A-3 and A-4 were all waiting for the arrival of the deceased. On the way, the deceased was waylaid by them and in furtherance of the common object of killing him, A-2 stabbed the deceased with the knife, A-3 beat him with hands on the left eye, A-4 kicked him on the thighs with leg, A-5 beat him with the iron rod, while A-1 opened fire on his chest, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to injuries instantaneously. All the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. c) On the next morning at about 6.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was in his house, a villager, on seeing the dead body of the deceased, informed him. He accompanied with the grandmother Pachiammal and the two wives of the deceased, proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. THE motor cycle was also found with the engine running. P.W.1 stopped the same. P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.18, the Inspector of Police. On the strength of the same, P.W.18 registered a case in crime No.172 of 2002 under Sections 302 IPC r/w S.25(1)(A) of Arms Act. Ex.P.20, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d) P.W.18 took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.17, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.21, the rough sketch. THE place of occurrence was photographed by P.W.15, the photographer. Ex.P.19 (series) photos and negatives were marked. THEn, P.W.18 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. He recovered material objects available from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. THE dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. e) P.W.5, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Polur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained 17 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem. f) Pending investigation, P.W.18 arrested A-1 to A-5 on 20.4.2002 and they came forward to give confessional statements, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses. THE admissible part of the confessional statements of A-1 was marked as Ex.P.10, A-2 was marked as Ex.P.11, A-3 was marked as Ex.P.24, A-4 was marked as Ex.P.25 and A-5 was marked as Ex.P.26. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced the material objects, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-1 to A-5 were sent for judicial remand. A-6 was arrested on 3.7.2002 and he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in Exs.P.7 and 9, Serologist's reports and Ex.P.8, the Biological report. Further, investigation was done by P.W.19, the Inspector of Police. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W.9 has also spoken in the same line that from the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, it would be quite clear that all accused persons were found in the company of the deceased at the time of occurrence and thereafter, they found the dead body of the deceased and thus, it would be quite clear that except these accused, no one could have committed the offence that P.W.10 has given evidence that he saw A-6 and the deceased in the motor bike and thus, all would further strengthen the case of prosecution that pursuant to the confession statement of A-1, the weapons of crime have been recovered and evidence was also adduced in this regard and thus, all would indicate the guilt of the accused, but the lower court has rejected the case of prosecution on flimsy grounds and further, the reasons stated by the lower court were all lacking and under these circumstances, the judgment of the lower court has got to be set aside and the respondents have got to be dealt with in accordance with law.