M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashChallenge is made to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai passed in S.C. No. 311 of 2005 on 19.08.2005, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and awarded one month S.I. u/s 341 IPC and also life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default sentence u/s 302 IPC.
2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
a) The deceased Kalaiselvi was the daughter of P.W.4. She was given in marriage to the accused/appellant. The relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained and they were living apart. The accused was living at Kajanaparai at Kerala State, while the deceased was staying in her father''s house at Cumbum and was working at Madura Departmental Stores, Cumbum. On 09.01.2005, when she was returning from her work at about 08.15 p.m. near Kambarayar Perumal temple, the accused/appellant pushed her down and attacked her indiscriminately with an aruval and caused severe injuries. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. Immediately, the public gathered and surrounded him. Despite a request to him to put down his aruval, he did not do the same. Thereafter, some persons in the crowd pelted stones on him and in that process, he sustained simple injuries and then, he threw the aruval on the ground. Then, he was caught hold by P.Ws.1 and 2 and was taken to the Police Station along with the aruval.
b) P.W.1 gave Ex.P1-Complaint to P.W.9-Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case u/s 302 of the Code in Crime No. 33 of 2005. Express F.I.R.-Ex.P8 was despatched to the Court immediately.
c) P.W.10-Circle Inspector of Police, Cumbum on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., proceeded to the spot, made inspection and prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P9-Rough Sketch. Thereafter, P.W.10 recovered the sample earth, blood-stained earth and also a pair of slipper, under a cover of Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P10-Inquest Report and the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.
d) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.7, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Cumbum and he gave Ex.P7-Post Mortem Certificate, wherein he opined that the death would have occurred 14 to 18 hours prior to autopsy and that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries in vital organs, namely, brain and spinal cord.
e) On 10.01.2005 at 9.00 a.m., the investigator enquired the accused who had already been handed over to the Police Station on the date of occurrence. He came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily in the presence of witnesses and the same was recorded. The admissible portion of the confessional statement of the accused is marked as Ex.P11. On the basis of the confessional statement, he produced M.Os.5 and 6-blood-stained banian and bloodstained dhoti respectively, and they were all recovered under the cover of Ex.P4-Seizure Mahazar. Then M.O.7-blood-stained shirt was recovered under a cover of Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar. Then, the accused was sent to the Government Hospital, Cumbum along with a requisition. The injuries on the accused were noted by the Medical Officer and Ex.P16 is the Accident Register copy issued to that effect. Thereafter, the investigator sent the material objects to the Forensic Lab for conducting chemical examination with a requisition under Ex.P12, followed by another requisition by the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court under Ex.P13. Two reports were received. One is Ex.P14, the Chemical Analysis Report and the other is Ex.P15, the Serologist report.
f) Thereafter, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, took up the case for further investigation. After completing the investigation, he filed final report on 18.03.2005 against the accused/appellant before the concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.
g) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and 18 M.Os. On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the available materials, the Trial Court, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at the instance of the accused/appellant.
3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused/appellant, the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant put forth the following points, which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. According to the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant, the occurrence has taken place at about 8.15 p.m. and P.Ws.1 to 3 have been shown as eye-witnesses. But P.Ws.1 to 3, according to the learned Counsel, could not have seen the occurrence at all, since P.W.1 or P.W.2 could not say what was actually the length and width of the street where the incident occurred or the colour of the saree which the deceased worn at that time or the colour of the clothes worn by the accused/appellant. The counsel further stated that in his evidence, P.W.1, who is a taxi driver, has stated that he used to visit the Police Station often for hiring his taxi. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, P.W.1 is a stock witness and he has been used by the Police often, for the purpose of giving false evidence, and also P.W.2 happened to be a friend of P.W.1, and hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon.
4. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant would add that, the Post Mortem Certificate clearly indicates that there were 7 injuries and the Doctor has categorically pointed that those injuries may not have been caused by four cuts, but according to P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the so-called eye-witnesses to the occurrence, 4 injuries were caused and thus, the eye-witnesses have not given proper account for the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased.
5. Added further the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant that in the instant case, even P.W.4, who is the father of the deceased has stated that the relationship between the deceased and the accused may not have gone to the extent of causing such heinous injuries, and hence, all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and the accused is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court and accordingly, the judgment of the Trial Court has got to be set aside.
6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also scrutinised the materials available.
7. It is not in controversy that one Kalaiselvi, wife of the accused/appellant and also the daughter of P.W.4, was done to death in an incident that had taken place at about 08.15 p.m. on 09.01.2005. Following the inquest made by the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to post mortem by P.W.7, who had given a categorical opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to brain and spinal cord injuries. These facts were never disputed before the Trial Court and hence the Trial Court had no legal impediment in recording so.
8. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that due to the strained relationship, despite the request of the accused/appellant to the deceased to come and live with him, she refused to it and being aggrieved by the same, he attacked her indiscriminately with an aruval at the time of occurrence and caused her death.
9. In order to substantiate that it was the accused who had committed the offence of murder, the prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses who were marched before the Trial Court. P.Ws.1 to 3 have categorically stated that at the time of occurrence at 8.15 p.m., near Kambarayar Perumal temple on 09.01.2005, when the deceased was walking along the street, they found the accused/appellant, pulling her hair and cutting on her head indiscriminately with an aruval. According to the eye-witnesses they chased the accused and made attempts to trap him, but he attempted to flee away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the crowd gathered and surrounded him and made a request to put down the weapon of crime, but he refused to do so and at that time, a few in the public pelted stones on him and thereafter, the accused threw the weapon of crime on the ground. Then, the accused was immediately caught and was taken to the Police Station along with the weapon of crime, by P.Ws.1 and 2.
10. It is pertinent to note that P.Ws.1 to 3 are all independent witnesses and they are not in any way interested either in the deceased or in the family of the deceased, nor they were inimical to the accused/appellant. Hence, the Court is unable to see any reason as to why their evidence should not be believed. It is true that the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant, has brought to the notice of the Court certain discrepancies in the evidence and also certain minor particulars which they are unable to give from the memory. This Court is of the considered opinion that all these are minor-most contradictions, which will not, in any way, affect the case of the prosecution and the eye-witnesses are neither inimical to the accused/appellant, nor interested in the deceased or the family of the deceased.
11. The added circumstances are that, immediately after the accused was produced before the Police Station, a case came to be registered within a short span of half an hour from the time of occurrence and the investigator has taken up the investigation immediately. He has also interrogated the accused and the accused came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded by the investigator in the presence of witnesses. From the evidence of the witnesses, it would be quite clear that the confessional statement is voluntarily made and on that basis, the clothes worn by him along with the weapon of crime were recovered. Also, the clothes worn by the deceased Kalaiselvi were subjected to analysis and the Forensic Sciences Department has given a Chemical Analysis Report and Serologist Report. A perusal of these reports would clearly indicate that all the clothes worn by the accused and the deceased and also the weapon of crime, contained the same blood group, and thus, the confession, which led to the recovery of the material objects, were actually found in favour of the prosecution case. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant that P.W.1, who is a taxi driver, often visits the Police Station and hence his evidence should be taken as stock witness and also P.W.2 happened to be a friend of P.W.1 and on that score, their evidence should be rejected, cannot be countenanced. The evidence of eye-witnesses relied on by the prosecution, would clearly indicate that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused and in the considered opinion of this Court, their evidence is abundant enough, in the instant case, to prove the case of murder. At the time of occurrence, there was no quarrel or any provocation, which would have led the accused to commit the heinous crime. In such circumstances, the Trial Judge has correctly given a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime of murder, on the basis of the evidence placed before him.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is unable to find out any reason either factually or legally to reject the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court on the accused/appellant are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed and the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
