GANESAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a Judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Special S. C. No. 36 of 2005, whereby the appellant/accused shown as A-1 along A-2 stood charged under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. On trial, the appellant/accused was found guilty of both the charges and awarded imprisonment for life and also two years RI respectively with fine and default sentence. The trial Court made an order of acquittal against A2.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the Criminal Appeal can be stated thus: (a) P. Ws. 3 and 4 are sisters. The deceased married P. W. 3 in the year 1984. A-1 wanted to marry P. W. 4, sister of P. W. 3. The deceased married P. W. 4 in the year 1987. Subsequently, A-1 married his sister's daughter Sumathy in the year 2000. After that, there were no talking terms. But A-1 was aggrieved that the deceased married P. W. 4 as his second wife, when he desires to marry her. (b) On the date of occurrence, P. W. 1, working as Watchman in Ravi Chettiyam Thoppu was informed by his wife that there were blood stains near the well. He went near the Well and found blood stains. P. W. 1 along with his wife went to Aryankuppam Police Station and informed about this to P. W. 16 Inspector. P. W. 16, Inspector, along with others went to the place of occurrence and instructed two persons to get into the well. A cycle was also found near the well along with a plastic bag. The body of the deceased and other articles were taken out from the Well. (c) P. W. 1 gave a statement Ex. P. 1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 65 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P. 29 is the printed FIR, which was despatched to Court. (d) P. W. 16, Inspector summoned Finger Print Experts and sniffing dog squad and prepared Observation Mahazaar Ex. P. 3 and rough sketch Ex. P. 30. An inquest was conducted by him in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 31 Inquest report. Finger Print Expert came to the scene and lifted finger prints from the Beer bottle M. O. 10. (e) P. W. 13 took photographs from the scene of occurrence. P. W. 13 also took the photos of finger print in M. O. 10. P. W. 16, Inspector seized the blood stained earth M. O. 11, sample earth M. O. 12 from the place of occurrence and also Beer bottle M. O. 10 under a cover of mahazaar Ex. P. 32. (f) P. W. 6, Doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. Ex. P. 5 is the Post Mortem report. Ex. P. 8 is the Chemical Analysis report. (g) P. W. 16, Inspector arrested A1 and A2 on 28. 05. 2003 at 07. 00 p. m. and they came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily. The admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused 1 and 2 are marked as Exs. P. 34 and P. 35 respectively. Pursuant to the statement given by A1, he produced M. O. 16 knife and M. O. 17 Lungi. Finger prints of both the accused were taken by P. W. 16 and they were sent for comparison to P. W. 12, who gave a report Ex. P. 20. (h) P. W. 17 took up further investigation, completed examination of witnesses and filed a final report on 03. 11. 2004.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 37 documents and 20 material objects. On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the submissions made on either side and also on scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as far as A1 was concerned and found him guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded sentence and imprisonment referred to above and passed an order of acquittal against A2. The first accused preferred an appeal, which is taken up for consideration.