SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Nagapattinam made in S. C. No. 71 of 1998 in a case of double murder, where the appellant herein stood charged under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and A-2 stood charged under Section 302 r/w S. 34 IPC (2 counts), tried and A-1 was found guilty under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and A-2 under Section 323 IPC (2 counts) and A-1 was awarded life imprisonment for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to undergo three months R. I. under Section 302 IPC and A-2 was sentenced to undergo three months R. I. for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo two weeks R. I. each under Section 323 IPC (2 counts ).

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) P. W. 1 is the daughter of deceased No. 1 Balu and deceased No. 2 Saroja. They were residing at Anaimelagaram Mariamman Koil Street. Both the accused, who are brothers, were residing in the house situated opposite row to the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 had two children, aged 6 and 4 years. On 5. 9. 1997 at about 7. 00 p. m. , the children of P. W. 1 went to the house of the accused and were playing for some time. P. W. 1 called both of them and scolded. The wife of A-1 took it mistakenly and quarrelled with P. W. 1. At that time, the father of P. W. 1, who came there, advised not to have any talks with the wife of A-1. At the time when this incident took place, both the accused were absent. b) Next day night, namely on 6. 9. 1997 at about 8. 00 p. m. , A-1 came to the house of P. W. 1 and questioned about the quarrel and he used filthy language against P. W. 1. P. W. 1, in answer to the above, told him that since nobody was available in the house, it would be better for him to go. At that time, Balu, the father of P. W. 1 and also the cousin brother of P. W. 1, by name Senthil, came there and there was wordy altercation. When it was going on, the second accused also joined in that quarrel. At that time, A-2 took a casuarina stick and attacked the first deceased on his head. At that time, A-1 rushed to his house, took aruval, came back and attacked the first deceased on his chest. The second deceased Saroja, the wife of the first deceased, who was present at that time, intervened to rescue her husband. Immediately, A-2 attacked her with stick and A-1 also attacked the second deceased with aruval on her chest. Both the deceased fell down. Immediately, both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 and 2. c) Both the deceased Balu and Saroja were taken to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai in an Auto. P. W. 4, the Doctor, who as on duty at that time, medically examined them and declared them dead. The Accident Registers in respect of the first and second deceased were marked as Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 respectively. An intimation was given to Mayiladuthurai Police Station and in turn, it was sent to Kuthalam Police Station. P. W. 11, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information, proceeded to the police station, Mayilduthurai and received Ex. P. 9, the accident intimation. d) Then, P. W. 11 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai and recorded the statement of P. W. 1, which was marked as Ex. P. 1. On the strength of Ex. P. 1, the complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 396 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P. 18, the F. I. R. was despatched to the Court. P. W. 11, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex. P. 2, the observation mahazar and Ex. P. 19, the rough sketch. He recovered material objects, including a stick, bloodstained earth and sample earth, under a cover of mahazar. Then, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead bodies of Balu and Saroja in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Exs. P. 20 and 21, the inquest reports respectively. The dead bodies were sent for the purpose of autopsy along with requisitions. e) P. W. 5, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Balu and has issued Ex. P. 10, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to heart and lungs. P. W. 6, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Saroja and has issued Ex. P. 11, the post-mortem certificate, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to vital organs lungs and heart. f) Pending investigation, the first accused was arrested on 7. 9. 1997 and he voluntarily came forward to give a confessional statement and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, which was marked as Ex. P. 5. Pursuant to the same, the first accused produced M. O. 2, aruval, which was recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. The first accused was sent for judicial remand. The second accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kumbakonam on 10. 09. 1997. All the M. Os recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the both the deceased and also the M. Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department along with the requisition given by the Investigator through the Judicial Magistrate concerned, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex. P. 16, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex. P. 17, the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charged levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 11 witnesses and relied on 21 exhibits and 10 M. Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view that the first accused was found guilty of murder on two counts and the second accused was found guilty under Section 323 IPC (2 counts) and awarded punishments as referred to above. Under these circumstances, this appeal has arisen at the instance of the first accused/appellant.