SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.193 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, tried, found guilty and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo 3 years R.I. under Section 302 IPC and one month S.I. under Section 341 IPC 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 brother-in-law and P.W.5 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Sudhakar. P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 was employed in the TASMAC Shop. Sudhakar lost his wife and thereafter, his conduct was not only questionable, but he has also attempted to outrage the modesty of the women in that locality. On the date of occurrence, namely on 27.11.2006 at noon hours, when P.W.1 and the deceased were near the TASMAC Shop, the accused came there. THE deceased and the accused stared each other. THE accused told P.W.1 about the conduct of the deceased. THEn, P.W.1 informed the accused not to have quarrel with him and he would inform to his mother. Accordingly, at about 2.00 p.m., P.W.1 informed his mother about the conduct of the deceased. b)At about 8.30 p.m., the accused and the deceased entered into the TASMAC Shop and they stared each other. In order to avoid tussle between them, P.W.2 asked them to go out and both of them went out. At about 9.30 p.m., the incident has taken place. P.Ws.2,3 and 4 have witnessed the occurrence. THE accused, who had suri knife, severed the head of the deceased Sudhakar and also stabbed him on his stomach, as a result of which, his intestine came out and the accused also cut his private part. THE occurrence was seen by P.Ws.2,3 and 4. THE accused fled away from the place of occurrence. c)P.W.1 on coming to know about the same, accompanied by others, went to the place and saw the dead body. P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station at about 11.00 p.m. and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the case in Crime No.289 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.12, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d)P.W.13, 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.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch. He has also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and the other material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the trunk of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report. He also conducted inquest on the head portion of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.15, the inquest report. THEreafter, he joined the trunk and the head and conducted inquest in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.16, the inquest report. THE dead body and the place of occurrence were photographed through P.W.10, the photographer. M.O.10(series) photos were marked. THEn, the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. e)P.W.8, the Doctor, attached to Chidambaram Kamaraj Government Hospital, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries, shock cardio respiratory arrest and also due to the severance of head. f)Pending investigation, on 28.11.2006, P.W.13 arrested the accused and the accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.9, V.A.O., the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.6. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.3, suri knife, M.O.8, bloodstained shirt and M.O.9, bloodstained lungi, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in Ex.P.10, the Chemical Analyst Report and Ex.P.11, the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that the evidence of P.W.4 would indicate that he could not have seen the occurrence at all that further it would be quite clear that P.Ws.3 and 4 could not have seen the occurrence at all that P.W.4 was the stock witness to the respondent police that he has given evidence in the murder cases of Ramajeyam and Gopal that the police has utilised his service for the purpose of the case that so far as P.W.3 was concerned, he could not have seen the occurrence at all that the arrest, confessional statement and the recovery could not have taken place as put forth by the prosecution that according to P.W.1, the accused was actually in the police station at about 7.30 a.m., but the Investigator would claim that the accused was arrested and all the recoveries were made only in the afternoon that the evidence of P.W.9, V.A.O. was nothing, but tissue of falsehood and thus, the claim of the prosecution as to the recovery of weapon of crime, bloodstained shirt and bloodstained lungi of the accused is of no help that the knife which was recovered was only 16 cms. length that according to the prosecution witnesses, the head was severed and the intestine was coming out, which could not have been taken place as put forth by the prosecution and they are humanly impossible also and thus, this part of the evidence is also false that even the knife was also subjected to chemical analysis and the report has been received, which would clearly reveal that though the human blood was found, the blood group could not be fixed and under these circumstances, the scientific evidence was also not in support of the prosecution case and hence the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all, but they have seen only the dead body.