SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, made in S.C.No.134 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and on trial, he was found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence for the first charge and 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence for the second charge.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Kamalam. P.W.2 is the daughter of Kamalam. P.W.3 is the younger sister of Kamalam. P.W.4 is the minor daughter of the deceased. P.W.2 was given in marriage to the accused four years prior to the occurrence. THEre was a strained relationship since he used to come in a drunken mood and quarrel with her. She filed a divorce O.P. before a Court of civil law at Dharapuram, and it also ended in her favour. A divorce decree was also granted. THEn, the deceased came to her mother's place, and she was living with them. THE mother of P.W.2 made arrangements for her to run a tea stall, and P.W.2 was maintaining herself and her children by running the tea stall.(b) While the matter stood thus, on 4.3.2007 at about 9.00 P.M., P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 along with the deceased were all sitting in front of the house of Kamalam, and they were talking about the conduct of the accused. At that time, the accused came over there and suddenly attacked the deceased Kamalam, his mother-in-law, with a wooden reaper on different parts of the body. When P.W.2 intervened, he took an aruval which was hidden at the back, and attacked her. When there was a distressing cry, he fled away from the place of occurrence with the weapons of crime.(c) Both the deceased Kamalam and also P.W.2 were taken to Kangayam Government Hospital where P.W.8 was the Doctor on duty. He first medically examined the deceased at about 9.30 P.M. THE accident register copy is marked as Ex.P10. THEn, at about 11.00 P.M., he examined P.W.2, and the accident register copy is Ex.P11. THEreafter, the deceased Kamalam was taken to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where P.W.9 was the Doctor. He medically examined and declared her dead. An intimation was given to the police. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.P1, at about 4.00 A.M. on 5.3.2007, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.195/2007 under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P22, was despatched to the Court.(d) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3 and also a rough sketch, Ex.P23. He recovered from the place of occurrence the material objects including the sample earth and bloodstained earth. THEreafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Kamalam in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P24. THEn, a requisition, Ex.P16, was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.11, the District Police Surgeon and Professor of Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kamalam and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P17, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(f) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 6.3.2007. He came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. THE admissible part is marked as Ex.P19, pursuant to which he produced M.O.3, wooden reaper, M.O.4, aruval, and M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. THEn, he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department pursuant to the requisition made by the Investigator. Exs.P8 and P9 are the reports. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) THE learned Counsel would further add that the evidence of all these witnesses if scrutinized carefully, would clearly indicate that they are not only contradictory to each other, but also self inconsistent, and hence their evidence should have been rejected that according to the witnesses, they were all talking in front of the house about the accused, and at that time, he came there, and he was having a wooden reaper in hand, and then he attacked the deceased, and thereafter, he attacked P.W.2 when she came to the rescue of her mother, with an aruval that it is highly improbable that the accused who was holding both the weapons namely wooden reaper and aruval, attacked one with reaper and the other with aruval and that under the circumstances, it would cast a doubt whether such an incident could have taken place at all.