KARIKALAN ALIAS HARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. 2, Coimbatore made in B.C. No. 35 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant, stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated a follows:(a) P.W.1 was running two plastic factories at Saravanampatti which were situate on either side of a road. 60 persons were employed. THE deceased Sowri Muthu @ Muthu was working as a watchman during the relevant time. THE accused was also working in the factory, whenever there was excess of work, P.W.1 used to give over time for the employees. Accordingly, on 25.2.2007, for the excess work, he called 4 or 5 employees from his factory situate on the other side of the road. Among them, the accused, P.Ws.9 to 11 were also called. Accordingly, on 25.2.2007, at about 4.00 a.m., the accused came to do over time work. THE factory was kept locked. When a request was made, the watchman refused to open the door stating that he would open it only at 5.00 a,m. THErefore, there was wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased. P.W.11 and others intervened and pacified the situation. But, on the same day at about 8 to 9 a.m., the accused went for toilet. At that time, the deceased switched off the machine and also disconnected the electric connection. After 10 minutes, when the accused came back and found the machine switched off, he again quarreled with the Watchman Muthu. P.W.9, 12 and 17 intervened and pacified the situation. All of them left for lunch at noon. P.W.17 went to the nearby liquor shop. At that time, he saw the accused drinking liquor. After half an hour, P.W.17 left home. When P.W.1 was in the factory, he gave Rs. 100/- to the deceased to get brandy which was also brought to him. THEreafter, at 2.30 p.m., the deceased left the place for lunch. After some time about 3.15 p.m., when P.W.1 and others were talking about the business, they were informed that the deceased with severe injuries was found in front of the factory. Immediately, they rushed there and found the watchman Muthu with severe injuries. THEn took him in an auto and they first took him to Rathnapuri Police Station which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Saravanampatti. THEy, they took him to the hospital P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.21 who registered a case in Crime No. 176 of 2007 under Section 302 I.P.C. at 18.00 hours. THE express F.I.R. Exhibit P-16 was dispatched to Court.(b) On 25.2.2007 at about 6 p.m., on receipt of the F.I.R., P.W.22. Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He went to the spot, made and inspection in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an observation Exhibit P-2 and drew a rough sketch Exhibit P-17. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared Inquest report Exhibit P-18. THEreafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem and P.W.15 doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has given his opinion in the post mortem certificate Exhibit P-14 wherein he has stated that the deceased would have died out of the neck injuries sustained by him.- Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 26.2.2007 at 7.00 p.m. and he gave confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to which, he produced three reapers which marked as material objects and the blood stained shirt M.O.5 and pant M.O.6 were recovered under a cover of mahazar Exhibit P-7. THEn, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis and two reports Exhibits P-10 end P-11 were received. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(d) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the, prosecution, the accused was question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. THE trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found him guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant on the second line of argument would submit that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the factual position that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased at the time of occurrence, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder for the reasons that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused was provoked by the same and that was actually lingering in the mind of the accused and hence, he would have acted so. Under such circumstances, this aspect has got to be considered by this Court and the law has got to be applied in that regard.