PRASANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Chidambaram, Cuddalore District, in S.C.No.319 of 2007 dated 8.1.2008. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, made in S.C.No.319 of 2007 whereby the accused/appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC, a charge of murder, 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 can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 was a resident of Thanvanadiyanpallam, Vallam. P.W.2 is his wife. THE brother of P.W.1 by name Vaidyanathan, a bachelor, was living with them. He developed illicit intimacy with P.W.3 who was already married and deserted by her husband. On 1.4.2007 at about 9.30 P.M., when Vaidyanathan was staying with P.W.3, A-1 and A-2 came there and asked him to come to a music party. At that time, the deceased was in a drunken mood. When he refused to come, he was forcibly taken by both the accused. When P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 who knew both the deceased and the accused, were walking across Thachampalayam Railway Gate, they found the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. A-1 was also having a big black stone in his hand at the time of the said quarrel. THE Village Administrative Officer of Periapattu Village, examined as P.W.7, on information through his Assistant, proceeded to the said railway gate on the morning hours of 2.4.2007 and found the dead body of Vaidyanathan. P.W.1 on coming to know that his brother's dead body was found near the railway gate, proceeded there, and after seeing the dead body of his brother, he proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police. On the strength of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.75 of 2007 under Sec.302 IPC. THE printed FIR, Ex.P18, along with Ex.P1 the report, were despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court. (b) THE case was taken up for investigation by P.W.15, who proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and a rough sketch, Ex.P19. THEn he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P20, the inquest report. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Both the accused were arrested on the day at about 3.00 P.M. Both came forward to give confessional statements voluntarily. THE same were recorded. THE admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P21 and that of A-2 is Ex.P22. THE accused produced M.O.7, a big black stone, which was recovered by the Investigator under a mahazar, Ex.P23. THEn the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition, Ex.P11. (c) P.W.13, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vaidyanathan and has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P9. He has opined under Ex.P10 that the deceased would have died of head injury and poly trauma. (d) Continuing the investigation, the Investigator recorded the statements of the witnesses. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and M.O.7 stone were sent for chemical analysis. Accordingly they were subjected to analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, and Exs.P7 and P8 are the chemical analyst's report and serologist's report respectively. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that P.Ws.4 to 6 were examined by the prosecution to speak that they saw the deceased in the company of the accused at or about the time near the railway gate where the dead body was found the next morning; that out of these three witnesses, P.Ws.4 and 6 have turned hostile; that much reliance was placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.W.5 and the trial Court has accepted the same; that the evidence of P.W.5 should have been rejected for three reasons; that firstly, at one stage he has stated that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused when he proceeded to the drama, and at the other stage, he has stated that he saw him in their company when he was returning from the drama; that secondly, it is to be pointed out that he has also further deposed that after witnessing the drama, he slept there and came only the next morning, and thus it is highly doubtful whether he would have seen the deceased in the company of the accused; that thirdly, he has claimed that he is a good friend of P.W.1; that had he seen the deceased and the accused quarreling with each other and that too, A-1 having a big stone in his hand, he would have definitely intervened to question or pacify the situation, but not done so; that it is pertinent to point out that he has claimed that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused at about 10.00 P.M.; that in such circumstances, one would naturally expect a person like P.W.5 to intervene, and thus it is highly doubtful whether P.W.5 could have seen the deceased in the company of the accused; that further even after coming to know that the dead body of the deceased was actually found near the railway gate, where the witness claimed to have seen him along with the accused, the previous night, he has not whispered to anybody about the same till he was examined by the police the next day; that apart from that, though the Investigator claimed that the statement of P.W.5 was recorded on 3.4.2007, it has reached the Court only on 5.7.2007; that this would also go to show that P.W.5 was only a planted witness; that barring this evidence, the prosecution had no evidence to offer and thus the prosecution has not proved its case; but the trial Court relying on the above pieces of evidence which were not worth mentioning, has erroneously found the appellants/accused guilty, and hence they are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.