GUNA ALIAS GUNAVATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Special Judge under S.C. and S.T.(PA) Act, 1989, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri made in S.C.No,97 of 2006, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. and S.T.(PA) Act, 1989, tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo two years R.I., while she was acquitted of the other charge under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act. 1989.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: a) P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Soolamalai Village. On 17.09.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., when he was in his office with P.W.2, the village menial, the accused/the appellant herein Guna @ Gunavathi appeared before him and gave confessional statement, which was marked as Ex.P.1, where she has stated that she had illicit intimacy with the deceased Shanmugam and though he was requested to stop the frequent visit to her house, he ignored her request and had been pestering her for sexual coitus. Aggrieved over the same, when he was sleeping in her house at about 3.00 a.m. on 17.09.2004, she cut his neck. Her statement was recorded by P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.P.1. b) P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.2, the complaint. P.Ws.1 and 2 took the accused to the place of occurrence and verified the same. THEn, P.W.1 along with the deceased proceeded to the respondent police station, where P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, was present. P.W.1 produced the accused along with Ex.P.1 and Ex.P. 2. P.W.17, on receipt of Exs.P.1 and P.2, registered a case in Crime No,322 of 2004 under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act, 1989. Ex.P.17, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. On instructions from the Superintendent of Police, the case was taken up for investigation by P.W.18, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. c) P.W.18, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.19, the rough sketch. THE place of occurrence and the dead body were photographed through P.W.14, the photographer. M.O.8 (series) photos and negatives were marked. P.W.18 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.21, the inquest report. THEn, the accused 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.20. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused produced M.O.1, bill hook, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. She has also produced M.O.2, saree, which was worn by her at the time of occurrence and the same was also recovered under a cover of mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. THE dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri for the purpose of autopsy. d) P.W.6, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained to vital organs. e) P.W.18 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. THE community certificates of the deceased Shanmugam, P.W.3 Annamalai @ Jadayan and the accused were also received, which were marked as Exs.P.9 to P.11 respectively. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place in the house of the accused that there were neighbours and also friends of the deceased, but no one has been examined to prove the case that the prosecution rested its case on the recovery of M.O.1, bill hook and also M.O.2, saree that so far as the recovery was concerned, it cannot be believed that P.W.2, who was examined as one of the witnesses, has categorically admitted that he did not know where from it was recovered and thus, it was only cooked up affairs that it is pertinent to point out that so far as the motive for the occurrence was concerned, it was alleged that there was illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased that if to be so, atleast one independent witness could have been examined, but the prosecution examined two witnesses, one was the father of the deceased and the other was the relative and except them, no one was examined that all would go to show that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that all pieces of evidence placed before the trial court were not worth mentioning and under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.