KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.147 of 2007, dated 4.3.2008.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.147 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo one year R.I.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) THE accused/appellant is the younger brother of the deceased Raghu. THEy were residing at Marandahalli within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. When P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Marandahalli, was in his office at about 8.00 p.m. on 29.01.2005, the accused appeared before him and gave a confessional statement that he attacked his brother at about 3.30 p.m. in front of the house of P.W.4 and the severely injured was taken to Primary Health Centre, Marandahalli, where he was given initial treatment by P.W.7, the Doctor and thereafter, he was taken to Dharmapuri Government Hospital, but on the way, he died. THE same was recorded by P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 prepared his own report, which was marked as Ex.P. 2. He produced Exs.P.1 and P.2 along with the accused before the respondent police station. b) P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at that time, on receipt of Exs.P.1 and P.2, registered a case in crime No,45 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. He also recovered M.O.1, aruval from the accused under a cover of mahazar. Ex.P.19, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) A copy of the F.I.R. was placed before P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Exs.P.3 and P.4, the observation mahazars and Exs.P.20 and P.21, the rough sketches. THEn, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. THE material objects from the place of occurrence were recovered under a cover of mahazar. P.W.15 recorded the statement of the witnesses. THEn, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Palacode for the purpose of autopsy. He also caused the arrest of the accused, who came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.13. M.Os.4 and 5, dhoti and shirt of the accused 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. Ex.P.11, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.12, the Serologist's report were received. d) P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Palacode, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to severed external jugular vein about 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. e) Further investigation was taken up by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, who on completion of the investigation, has filed final report.

(3.) THE learned counsel, in his second line of argument, would submit that, even assuming that the factual position that it was the accused, who attacked his brother with aruval and as a direct consequence he died, is taken to have been proved by the prosecution, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder that even as per the case of the prosecution, on the date of occurrence, it was the wedding day of the accused and it was the deceased who gave Rs.50/- as a gift to the accused, but he demanded for the return of the same in the afternoon and there was a wordy quarrel and in that wordy quarrel, it was the deceased who beat the accused and under these circumstances, due to quarrel and being provoked, the accused has attacked the deceased with aruval and thus, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder and hence this aspect has got to be considered by this court.