PONNUDURAI ALIAS PALANISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram made in S.C.No.78 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 506(2), 341 and 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded one month SI under Section 341 IPC, life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo 3 years R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 2 years RI for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. each under Section 506(2) IPC (4 counts) and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: a) P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased Balasubramaniam. P.W.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.4 is also the relative of the deceased. All of them are the residents of Nattukalpalayam within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. THE accused is the cousin brother of P.W.1. THE landed property belonged to the family was divided among their families 13 years prior to the occurrence. After the death of his father, the accused was residing along with his mother in Chettythottam, which is situated near the house of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 were watering their land through the canal on turn basis. THEre was often quarrel. Apart from that, 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence, the accused wanted to marry the sister of P.W.2, but it was denied. Just 3 months prior to the occurrence, P.W.2 married the daughter of the deceased. THE accused was aggrieved over the same. Being enraged over the situation, he began threatening the workers employed in the land of P.W.1 and the deceased. Often, he was threatening P.W.1 and others. b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 10.03.2007 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W.10 was in the house, the accused came there and was standing outside with Koduval and shouted that he is going to finish them off. P.W.10 immediately informed P.W.1, who was in the land. At that time, P.W.10 informed about the threat through the land line to his cell phone. P.W.3 who came to meet P.W.1 was also there and he was also informed about the same. After completing the agricultural works, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.3 was proceeding in the road. At that time, P.Ws.2 and 4 were also coming in the motor cycle. P.W.5, who had tea in the tea stall, was also coming in the road and he was also just proceeding. At that time, the accused was coming from north to south in the motor cycle. THE deceased was also coming in the motor cycle from south and he was just overtaking P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.5 found the accused overtaking him and he was able to see that the Koduval was projecting on his back side and he entertained suspicion. P.Ws.1 to 5 have seen that the accused stopped his vehicle, waylaid the deceased and attacked him with M.O.1, Koduval on different parts of his body indiscriminately, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot instantaneously. When P.Ws.1 to 4 attempted to go to his rescue, the accused threatened all of them, because of which, they did not go nearby. THE accused fled away from the place of occurrence. c) P.W.1 proceeded to his village, informed to the relatives and thereafter, he proceeded to the respondent police station at about 7.15 p.m. He gave Ex.P.1, the written complaint to P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of the same, P.W.19 registered a case in crime No.170 of 2007 under Sections 341, 302 and 506(2) IPC. Ex.P.15, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court and it reached the concerned Judicial Magistrate's residence at 8.30 p.m. d) P.W.20, 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 Ex.P.10, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.16, the rough sketch. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. THE dead body and the place of occurrence were photographed through P.W.8, the photographer. M.O.4, C.D. and M.O.5 (series) photos were marked. THE dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.20 also recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth, both the motor cycles and the other material objects under the cover of mahazar. e) P.W.12, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharapuram, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries about 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy. f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.3.2007, who came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.12. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.1, Koduval and the bloodstained shirt and lungi, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. P.W.6, the Motor Vehicle Inspector examined both the motor cycles and has given Ex.P.2, the report as to the damages caused to the motor cycles. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science department and necessary certificates were obtained and produced before the court. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Senior Counsel that so far as P.W.5 was concerned, according to him, he was actually proceeding in his cycle that he was having tea in the tea stall at about 4.30 p.m. and thereafter, he was going on his way and at that time, he found the accused going in his Hero Honda motorbike and he also found M.O.1 which was hidden on the back side of the accused that the learned counsel brought to the notice of the court that M.O.1 was too long and weighty also, which could not be ordinarily handled and apart from that, it was highly improbable to hide the same on the back side of the accused that the same could not be hidden that as usual, there was arrest, confessional statement and the recovery of M.O.1, Koduval, which were nothing but prepared to suit the prosecution case that the very look of M.O.1, Koduval would itself be sufficient to reject the evidence of P.W.5 and apart from that, according to P.Ws.1 to 4, it was M.O.1 with which the accused has attacked the deceased, but it cannot be so, since it is improbable.