GOVINDARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram, made in S.C.No.663 of 2005 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus:(a) P.W.13 is the father of the accused and also the deceased Loganathan. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.1 and her husband, the deceased, were living in the front part of the house, while P.W.13 along with his wife and the younger son, the accused, was living in the back portion. THE deceased was all along demanding for partition of the family properties, and thus, there was a misunderstanding between him on the one side and P.W.13 his father, on the other. On 6.7.2005 at about 11.00 A.M., when the deceased was sitting in the pial located in the front portion of the house, the accused came over there with a iron pipe and uttered "So long you are alive, you would be asking for share in the properties. THErefore, you should be finished." So saying, he attacked him with M.O.1, iron pipe. THE deceased fell down. Not satisfied, he took M.O.2 granite stone, and attacked him with the same on the left shoulder and again took the same and threw it on the head of the deceased. THE occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. She shouted. THEn, all others gathered. THE accused ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.2 informed to P.Ws.3 and 4 the brother and father of P.W.1 respectively. THEn, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, was present. She gave Ex.P1, the report, at 12.00 Noon. On the basis of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.320 of 2005 under Sec.302 of IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court along with Ex.P1. (b) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P7, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P13. THEn, he recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth and a granite stone under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P14. THEn, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram, for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition.(c) P.W.5, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kancheepuram, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Loganathan and has noticed six external injuries. He issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to fatal injury to vital organ - brain.(d) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 7.7.2005 at 8.00 A.M. in the presence of witnesses. He came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.9 and another. THE admissible part is marked as Ex.P15, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1 iron pipe, which was recovered under a cover of Ex.P10, mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in Ex.P5, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P6, the serologist's report. THEy were placed before the Court. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the delay is also noticed in giving the information that had it been true that P.W.1 was actually an eyewitness to the occurrence and the deceased also died instantaneously, one would expect her to go to the police station immediately but, there is a delay noticed that apart from that, the medical opinion canvassed did not corroborate the ocular testimony that the arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.1 iron pipe, were nothing but a cooked up affair that according to P.W.1, he actually had an iron pipe in hand, and with that he attacked him, and only after leaving the pipe, he took the stone, M.O.2, and attacked him that if to be so, there was no reason for him to take M.O.1 from the place of occurrence, and thus, the arrest, confession and recovery were nothing but developments in order to suit the prosecution case that though P.W.1 happened to be a relation, her evidence if tested with careful scrutiny, cannot be accepted and that under the circumstances, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in any manner known to law.