RAMASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track court No. I, Chengalpattu, made in S. C. No. 176 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and default sentence.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P. W. 1 is the son of the accused and the deceased Rajammal. P. W. 2 is the sister of the deceased. P. W. 3 is the daughter of P. W. 2. The deceased was the second wife of the appellant/accused. They were living together. The deceased was running a shop in which P. W. 1 used to assist her. The accused was in the practice of taking away the money collected in the business. When there was a debt payable by the family, the family property was sold for about Rs. 3 lakhs one and half years before, and after making the payment of debt, the balance was available. One day, suddenly the accused took away Rs. 1. 50 lakhs and disappeared. Then he was brought back, and the matter was compromised. Thereafter, he continued to live with them. (b) On the previous day to the occurrence, that was on 16. 3. 1997, P. W. 1 accompanied his wife and went over to the birth day ceremony of his sister's son. At that time, both the deceased and the appellant were only available in the house. At about 9 or 9. 30 P. M. , they were taking dinner. P. W. 3 who was a child aged about 10 and who was living nearby along with the parents, came over there since her parents were absent. P. W. 7, the friend of P. W. 1, has also come to the house and found the appellant in the company of the deceased. (c) The next day i. e. , 17. 3. 1997, after the function was over, P. W. 1 and his wife were coming to the house at about 6. 00 a. M. At that time, P. W. 1 found that the petty shop was kept closed, and the house doors were kept open. Immediately, he went inside and found his bed room was kept closed. Then he got inside through the backdoor and found the dead body of his mother, and the head was smashed with a reaper M. O. 1, which was kept aside. He made enquiry. Immediately, he took her to the Government Hospital, where she was declared dead. Thereafter he proceeded to the respondent police station where he gave a complaint Ex. P1 at 3. 05 A. M. P. W. 10, who was the Sub inspector of Police on duty, got Ex. P1, the report, and registered a case in crime No. 357/2007 under Sec. 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex. P10, was despatched to the Court. (d) The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, p. W. 11, who went to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex. P6. Then, he conducted inquest inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex. P7. (e) Pursuant to the requisition made, the dead body of Rajammal was subjected to autopsy by P. W. 9, the Professor, Head and police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Royapettah Hospital, madras, who has given his categorical opinion in the course of the postmortem certificate, Ex. P4, that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. (f) The police could not secure the accused for a longtime. He was actually secured in the year 2007 by executing the NBW, and then he was produced before the Court. Further, all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, were subjected to chemical analysis by the forensic Sciences Department pursuant to a requisition given. Ex. P10, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex. P11, the serologist's report, were received by the Court. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) THE case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also relied on 11 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. , 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 him guilty and awarded life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.