GOWRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, krishnagiri in S. S. C. No. 190 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302, 307 and 309 I. P. C. and on trial, he was found guilty of all the three charges and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment, 10 years rigorous imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment respectively along with fine and default sentences.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P. W. 1 is the sister of the deceased Jeyanthi. During the relevant time, she was staying along with the accused and the deceased. 12 years prior to the occurrence, the accused/appellant met with an accident and he claimed compensation and it was awarded. Out of the amount received, he deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the name of his wife the deceased Jeyanthi and thereafter, he often demanded her to withdraw the said amount and give it to him but she refused to do so. On account of the same, the accused often quarrelled with his wife/deceased. On 5. 12. 2006 at 5. 00 a. m. , there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At that time, P. W. 1 was in the house along with the deceased and the accused. The accused demand for the deposit amount to which course, the deceased was not amenable. Immediately, the accused took a bill hook and cut her on different parts of her body and severed her head. It was witnessed by P. W. 1 and the accused strangulated his child Sathyapriya aged 8 1/2 years who was sleeping nearby. On seeing the same, P. W. 1 raised alarm and on hearing the cry, P. W. 2 neighbour ran inside the house and he was informed about the occurrence. When the crowd gathered, the accused attempt to commit suicide by cutting himself with bill hook. Thereafter, he ran away from the place of occurrence. (b) The 8 = years old child Sathyapriya was taken to Kallavi government Hospital and thereafter to Krishnagiri Government Hospital for treatment. The doctor attached to the Government Hospital Krishnagiri gave treatment to the child and the accident register copy was marked as Ex. P. 10. P. W. 2 took P. W. 1 to Kallavi Police Station where P. W. 11 was the Inspector of police to whom she gave Ex. P1 report, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 478/2008 under section 302 and 307 I. P. C. The F. I. R. , ex. P. 15 was dispatched to Court. (c) On receipt of a copy of the F. I. R. P. W. 13 the Circle Inspector at Bargur took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex. P3 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and also drew a rough sketch Ex. P. 19. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Jeyanthi and prepared the Inquest report Ex. P. 20. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem. (d) P. W. 9 doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District, on receipt of the requisition from the Investigating Officer conducted autopsy on the deceased Jeyanthi and issued Ex. P13 post mortem certificate wherein he has opined that "the deceased would appear to have died of Haemorrhage and shock due to injury to blood vessels of neck nerves and spinal cord. 8-10 hours prior to autposy. " (e) Further, pending investigation, on 5. 12. 2006 at 11. 00 a. m, when p. W. 4 Village Administrative Officer was in his office, the accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement as to the entire occurrence. The statement given by the accused was recorded by P. W. 4 in Ex. P. 5. P. W. 4 took the accused to the Police station and handed over the accused along with his report ex. P. 6 and the confessional statement given by the accused to the Investigating officer. Thereafter, the accused gave confessional statement to the Police and the same was recorded by the Investigating officer. The admissible part of the confessional statement given by the accused was marked as Ex. P7. Pursuant to which, the accused produced M. O. 4, pant M. O. 5, shirt and M. O. 6,vest which were recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex. P. 9. He also produced M. O. 3 bill hook which was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex. P8. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material objects recovered from the accused, pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected to analysis by the Forensic Science Department pursuant to the requisition made by the concerned Court. (f) The accused was taken to the Government where he was given treatment by the doctor,p. W. 9 and he has given statement that he sustained injuries by hurting himself. The accident register copy was marked as Ex. P. 11 and the accused was sent for judicial remand. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (g) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 22 exhibits and 14 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witnesses were examined. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court found the accused guilty of three charges and awarded the punishments as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant.

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the only one eye witness examined on the side of the prosecution was P. W. 1. At the time of occurrence, P. W. 1 was only 15 years old and she was a school going child. P. W. 1 has categorically stated that on the date of occurrence, in the police station, her signature was obtained in blank papers. Hence, it should have been filled up to suit the prosecution case. Added further learned counsel, P. W. 1 was a child witness, therefore, it has to be carefully scrutinised. All the circumstances attendant have got to be looked into. The trial Court should have disbelieved the evidence of P. W. 1 since the occurrence has taken place in the morning hours and naturally P. W. 1 would have been sleeping. Baring the evidence of P. W. 1, the prosecution has no further evidence to offer. The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused to P. W. 4 Village Administrative Officer was nothing but cook up affair in order to strengthen the prosecution case. Further, the alleged confessional statement and the recovery were all created by the police. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses should not be given much credence or any evidentiary value. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.