AHAMED BATSHA ALIAS NEETHINATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Mahila Court, cuddalore, made in S. C. No. 18/2008 whereby the appellant/sole accused stood charged under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and default sentence under Sec. 302 IPC and three years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and default sentence under Sec. 404 IPC.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) The deceased Basheerakani was the wife of P. W. 12. During the relevant time, he was away in Saudi Arabia. P. W. 4 is the brother and P. W. 5 is the sister of the deceased. The land of the father of the deceased and that of P. W. 8 were situated adjacent to each other. There was a pathway dispute between the parties. The same was solved by a panchayat. P. W. 16 was the President of the Tamil Nadu muslim Munnetra Kazhagam of which, during the relevant time, the accused was a p. R. O. There was a land dispute between P. W. 4 and one Kajamoideen. The same was informed to P. W. 16, and he in turn asked the accused to solve the problem. Accordingly, the accused took the assistance of the Tahsildar of the place, and on measuring the lands, the problem was also solved. (b) During the relevant time, the accused had occasion to go to the house of Basheerakani often. On one day, he borrowed gold chain of 6 sovereigns marked as M. O. 9, from Basheerakani. He pledged the same, but he did not return it. Many a demand was made, and thereafter, she informed the same to P. W. 4. P. W. 13, the sister of P. W. 12, was also informed of the same. The deceased took P. W. 13 also and went to the house of the accused. When the demand was made, there was a wordy altercation. Following the same, the jewel was returned to the deceased after a few days. Thus the accused had a grudge in his mind. Even thereafter, he continued his relationship with the family members including the deceased. (c) On 25. 6. 2007, p. W. 22, who was residing in the opposite direction and also a friend of the deceased, found the deceased leaving from the house at about 9. 30 A. M. But she did not return that day. After 10 days, she came to know that the dead body of basheerakani was found. (d) In the evening hours of 25. 6. 2007, when P. W. 4 was in her house at Ariyalur, Basheerakani came over there at about 6. 30 P. M. and received a phone call from the accused. She was informed by the accused to come to the bus stand. Accordingly, Basheerakani went to the bus stand where the accused was also standing. When they were actually standing nearby, it was actually witnessed by P. W. 14. Thereafter they boarded a State Transport Bus, and they moved from there. At that time, P. W. 7 found both standing aside the road and chatting. An auto belonging to P. W. 10 was engaged by both the accused and basheerakani, and they were taken to Periyanesanur Village. After some time, p. W. 10 left the place leaving both of them at that place. Thereafter, P. W. 11, the Headmaster of a School, who was coming on his way, found the accused alone standing nearby the place of occurrence. He was talking to him, and there was some evasive reply from the accused. Thereafter, he also left the place. (e) On 26. 6. 2007 at about 10. 00 A. M. , the Assistant of P. W. 1, the Village administrative Officer (VAO), found a dead body of a female and informed the same to the VAO. Then P. W. 1 proceeded to the spot, found the dead body and proceeded to the respondent police where he gave Ex. P1, complaint. Then a case was registered by P. W. 26, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No. 252 of 2007 under Sec. 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex. P24, was sent to the Court. (f)P. W. 28, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P25, and also a rough sketch, Ex. P26. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex. P27. The place of occurrence along with the dead body were photographed through a photographer, P. W. 18. M. O. 22 series are the photos with negatives. Then the dead body was sent to the government Hospital along with a requisition for conduct of autopsy. (g) P. W. 21, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of basheerakani and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex. P19, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained i. e. , head injury i. e. , brain. (h) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 6. 7. 2007 at 7. 00 A. M. He came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex. P32 pursuant to which he produced M. O. 9, double gold chain, M. O. 10, Thali chain, and M. O. 11, gold ring. All of them were sent to the Court, and the accused was also sent for judicial remand. On requisition, the test identification parade was conducted by p. W. 24, the Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudy. The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex. P23. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which brought forth Ex. P13, the Chemical Analyst's report, and ex. P14, the Serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the investigator filed the final report.

(3.) THE case was committed to Court of session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and also relied on 38 exhibits and 22 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the accused guilty and awarded punishment as stated above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.