MURUGANANTHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Division, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.141 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. and on trial he was found guilty of the said charges and awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment respectively.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. P.W.1 is the brother of P.W. 2. THE accused/appellant belonged to the same village Koilseemai. P.W.2 was cultivating the land of one Mahalingam on lease basis which was objected to by the accused. (b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 3.7.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased found the accused/appellant scolding her husband. Immediately, she intervened and questioned the conducted of the accused. Suddenly, the accused got into the house and took an aruval, M.O.1 and attacked her on the right palm and on the left side of her head. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 witnessed the occurrence. He also attacked P.W.2 and he sustained injuries. THE accused ran away from the place of occurrence. (c) P.W.2 was taken to the Government Hospital in the vehicle(Tata Sumo car) of P.W.15. At about 7.50 p.m., P.W.14, doctor medically examined P.W.2 and found the injuries sustained by him. THE accident register copy in that regard was marked as Ex.P8. (d) P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1 to P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police Vikramangalam who was on duty at that time. On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.109/2007 under sections 307 and 302 IPC at 19.00 hours. THE express F.I.R., Ex.P10 was dispatched to Court (e) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the F.I.R., took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot made and inspection and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P11. He recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth M.O.3 and M.O.4 respectively in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar . He went to the mortuary and conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P12, inquest report. THEreafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. (f) On receipt of the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 conducted autopsy on the deceased Pushpavalli and gave his opinion in the post mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ, shock and haemorrhage 12-24 hrs prior to autopsy. (g) THE accused was arrested on 4.7.2007 at 11.45 a.m and he came forward to give confessional statement. THE admissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.P13 Pursuant to the confessional statement made, the accused produced aruval M.O.1, weapon of crime, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. THEreafter, he was sent for judicial remand. THE material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and from the accused, pursuant to the confession made were subjected to analysis and the Biology report- Ex.P15, Chemical report- Ex.P16 and serologist report- Ex.P17 were received and sent to Court. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (h) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits and 9 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court found the accused guilty under sections 307 and 302 I.P.C and awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant.

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel , the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through the above so called eye-witnesses was not supported by the medical opinion canvassed through the post mortem doctor. Further, though all the 5 witnesses have deposed that they were eye-witnesses, they could not account for the external injuries sustained by the deceased. This would cast doubt whether they would have been present at the place of occurrence. The learned counsel would further submit that so far as the recovery of M.O.1, aruval, pursuant to the alleged confessional statement is concerned, this is a cooked up document in order to strengthen the prosecution case. All would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view as if the prosecution has proved both the charges leveled against the accused.