BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Pondicherry at Karaikal, made in S.C.No.18 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased Indira who was given in marriage to the appellant. P.W.1 is a neighbour. Both the accused and the deceased were living. Indira's mother died in Tsunami, and compensation was also given to her father. The accused was insisting that she should get the share in the compensation amount, and he used to often come in a drunken mood and quarrel with her all along the days. (b) On 1.6.2007 at about 12.30 P.M., the accused was quarrelling with her as to the compensation amount. Since she did not pay heed to his words, he took a kerosene can kept in the house, poured on her, set fire and ran away. Immediately, the deceased came out with burning injuries. On hearing the distressing cry, the neighbours gathered and they immediately took her to the General Hospital, Karaikal. P.W.7, who was the Doctor on duty, gave her initial treatment. Immediately, the Doctor gave an intimation to the respondent police. (c) P.W.12, who was the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station on duty, on receipt of the said intimation, went to the General Hospital, Karaikal, and recorded the statement of Indira marked as Ex.P20. On the strength of Ex.P20, he registered a case in Crime No,71 of 2007 under Sec.307 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P21, was sent to the Court. He took the Photographer, and photographs were taken as to the place of occurrence. He prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. (d) Pending investigation, a communication was addressed to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karaikal. Accordingly, P.W.14, the Judicial Magistrate, went to the General Hospital, and after being certified by Dr.Thilagendran that she was in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration, he recorded the same at about 6.35 P.M. The said dying declaration is marked as Ex.P26. The said certificate given by the Doctor is Ex.P15. (e) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 2.6.2007 at about 10.15 A.M. He also came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P5. Pursuant to the same, he took the police party and also the Investigator and produced a kerosene can and also a match stick, marked as M.Os.3 and 4 respectively, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. (f) In the meanwhile, Indira who was under treatment, died on 4.6.2007 at 11.30 A.M. Then the case was converted to Sec.302 of IPC by P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police. The alteration report, Ex.P25, was sent to the Court. The further investigation was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on 4.6.2007. (g) P.W.15 made an inspection of the place of occurrence and went to the General Hospital, Karaikal, where at the mortuary, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Indira in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P7. Then a requisition was forwarded to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy. (h) Pursuant to the requisition made, P.W.10, the Senior Medical Officer, attached to the General Hospital, Karaikal, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Indira and has given a postmortem certificate, Ex.P19, with his opinion that death is due to septicemic shock as a result of burns. (i) On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that P.W.5 is the brother of Indira that according to him, Indira informed him that it was her husband, the appellant herein, who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze that if to be so, she should have immediately informed the same to the neighbours and relatives, but not done so, and hence it would be quite clear that it was an added evidence.