PADMANABAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, made in S.C.No,237 of 2002 dated 18.4.2006. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, made in S.C.No,237 of 2002 whereby the appellants ranked as A-2 and A-3 respectively, stood charged along with three others, tried and found guilty as follows: Table A-1 was absconding, and hence the case was split up in his regard.

(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 one Jothilakshmi. THE deceased Duraisamy was the brother of P.W.1. A-1 who was residing in the adjacent house, was stealing electric energy from the house of Jothilakshmi. On coming to know this, P.W.1 and the deceased Duraisamy went to the house of A-1 and questioned the same. A-1 replied that he would continue to do so. P.W.1 and Jothilakshmi informed him that they would lodge a complaint before the Electricity Board. (b) On 25.12.2001, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1, while she was returning from the grocery shop, found A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 talking about a plan to do away with P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy. Immediately, P.W.4 informed to P.W.1 about the said conspiracy. (c) On 26.12.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy were returning from the tea shop. At about 7.30 P.M., when they were just crossing the house of one Mahalingam at Ramamurthy Nagar, A-1. A-2 and A-3 waylaid P.W.1 and his brother Duraisamy. A-1 uttering the words "Are you going to give complaint to the Electricity Board", took a knife from his waist. At that time, A-3 caught hold of Duraisamy, and A-1 stabbed him on his stomach. As a result, the intestine came out. A-2 stabbed him on the chest. When P.W.1 raised a distressing cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 also rushed to the spot. On seeing the crowd, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. THEn the severely injured Duraisamy was taken in an auto to the Government Hospital, Mettur. (d) P.W.7, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, medically examined Duraisamy and declared him dead. THE accident register copy in that regard is marked as Ex.P6. An intimation was given to the respondent police station. P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at about 9.15 P.M., which is marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No,691 of 2001 under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P9, was despatched to the Court. (e) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P10. THEn he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P11. THEreafter, a requisition, Ex.P7, was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem. (f) P.W.8, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Mettur, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Duraisamy and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs. (g) Pending investigation, A-1 was arrested. He gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. A-2 was arrested, and his confessional statement was recorded. THE admissible part is Ex.P4. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. THEn the other accused were arrested. All of them were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. Exs.P14 and P16 are serologist's reports. Ex.P15 is the chemical analysis report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) ADVANCING his further arguments, the learned Counsel would submit that as far as A-2 was concerned, the trial Court has found him guilty under Sec.326 r/w 34 IPC and awarded four years Rigorous Imprisonment which is excessive that it has got to be looked into leniently that so far as A-3 was concerned, even at the time of the occurrence, he was a juvenile that as per the Juvenile Justice Act, he should have been sent to the forum under that enactment and enquiry should have been conducted by that forum but, it was not done that under the circumstances, the entire trial as against A-3 was thoroughly vitiated, and hence justice has got to be rendered by this Court.