RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, thirupathur at Vellore, made in S. C. No. 57 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC and he was awarded life imprisonment and three years Rigorous imprisonment respectively.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P. W. 1 is the elder son of Vijayakumari, the deceased. P. W. 2 is the elder sister of Vijayakumari. P. W. 8 is the daughter of P. W. 2. Vijayakumari was living along with the family members in Door No. 1, Ramalingam Complex, Indira Nagar, ambur. P. W. 6 is the owner of the said property. The appellant/accused used to come to the house of the deceased for electrical repairs. On that account, p. Ws. 1 and 2 and the family members knew him. P. W. 1 and his wife would go for employment at 8. 30 A. M. P. W. 1's son would also go to the school at the same time. The deceased used to be alone in the house. (b) On 11. 4. 2007, the date of occurrence, at about 11. 30 A. M. , when she was alone in the house, the accused got inside. This was actually witnessed by P. W. 2 when she was proceeding to the house of her daughter, P. W. 8, along with another sister. At the time, when P. W. 1 was in his place of employment, he received a phone call from his uncle that his mother Vijayakumari was found dead, and immediately he proceeded to his house and found the dead body, and one of the ear studs was found missing. When the dead body was noticed, the arms were tied at the back, and also the mouth was closed. He immediately informed to others and proceeded to the respondent police station, where the Sub Inspector of Police, P. W. 13, was on duty to whom P. W. 1 gave Ex. P1, the complaint, on the strength of which a case was registered in crime No. 92 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex. P16, was despatched to the Court. (c) P. W. 14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared Ex. P2, the observation mahazar, and also Ex. P17, the rough sketch. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex. P18. Thereafter, P. W. 4, the photographer, was engaged for taking photographs. The photos and its negatives are marked as M. O. s. 11 and 12 series respectively. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of postmortem. (d) P. W. 11, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, ambur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of vijaya Kumari and has issued a postmortem certificate Ex. P11, with her opinion ex. P12 that death was due to compression of air way obstruction. (e) At the time of postmortem, M. Os. 1 and 2, ear stud and nose screw respectively, were removed from the dead body, and on the request of P. W. 1, they were handed over to him by the Investigator. While the investigation was pending, the accused was arrested in connection with Crime No. 64 of 2007 registered by Alangayam Police Station. When P. W. 12, the Sub Inspector of Police, arrested the accused in that case with regard to the theft of two wheeler, he came forward to give a confessional statement, and it was recorded. Ex. P13 is the printed FIR in that regard. (f)While that investigation was pending, on suspicion the accused was arrested in connection with this case. Then he came forward to give a confessional statement. The same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. The admissible part is marked as Ex. P4. Thereafter, the accused produced M. O. 3, one of the ear studs, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then P. W. 1 was summoned, and he was also directed to produce M. Os. 1 and2. Accordingly, he produced both, and they were seized from him under Form 95. They were all produced before the Court. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in two reports namely the Chemical Analyst's report, Ex. P7, and the Serologist's reports, Exs. P9 and P10. 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 marched 14 witnesses and also relied on 27 exhibits and 12 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 on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this Court.