M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashChallenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Tract Court No. I, Erode, made in S.C. No. 150 of 2009 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged Sections 302 and 381 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment for the first charge and three years Rigorous Imprisonment for the second charge.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Sundaram, and P.W.1 is his brother''s son. P.W.5 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was carrying on rice mills in Karumandampalayam within the jurisdiction of the Respondent police. His residential house was situated nearby the said rice mills. P.W.1 was supervising the rice mills. P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 were all employees during the relevant time. The accused was also employed in the rice mills. On the first floor of one of the rice mills, the deceased was having his rest room where he was having a steel bureau. All the employees were given residential quarters nearby the rice mills.
(b) On 15.7.2007 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused demanded some money to go to Salem in connection with a criminal case which he was facing. At first, the deceased refused to give money. Thereafter, he abused him, but gave Rs. 200/- through the clerk, P.W.6. This was known to P.Ws.3, 6, 7 and 10. After getting the money, immediately the accused informed P.Ws.7 and 10 that the deceased has defamed him in their presence, and he would show to him who he was.
(c) On 18.7.2007 at about 7.00 A.M., the deceased did not come out of the rest room. Suspecting the same, P.Ws.4, 7 and 10 went over there and found it kept opened, and the bureau was also kept opened. Thereafter, they went to the godown, and it was also found locked inside. When they opened, they found the said Sundaram with bleeding injuries. The same was informed to all. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed and took him to the nearest hospital at Ganapathipalayam in order to give him first aid. Thereafter, they took him to the Government Hospital, Erode, where he was declared dead.
(d) Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the Respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report. P.W.24, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No. 153/2007 u/s 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P24, was despatched to the Court.
(e) P.W.25, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P25. Then he caused the place of occurrence and the dead body to be photographed through P.W.22, the Photographer. The photos and negatives were marked as M.Os.12 and 13 series respectively. The Finger Print Expert, P.W.18, was summoned, and he took the finger prints available from the place of occurrence. After comparison of the finger prints of the accused, he gave the finger print reports, Exs.P13 and 14. Then the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Sundaram in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P26. A requisition was forwarded to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(f) P.W.16, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Erode, on receipt of the said requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sundaram and gave his opinion in Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died 16 to 18 hours prior to autopsy due to head injury, haemorrhage and shock.
(g) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 20.7.2007, when 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.P5. Following the same, he produced M.O.6, iron pipe, and M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. Then the Investigator enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. According to P.W.8, who was running a wine shop, on 17.7.2007 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused came there and took liquor. According to P.W.9, he found the Appellant/accused nearby the place of occurrence on the night hours of 17.7.2007 namely at about 12.45 A.M. Equally, when P.W.10 was coming, he was approached by the accused who asked the time, and it was also nearby the place of occurrence. P.Ws.11, 12 and 13 have given statements to the effect that at about 4.30 A.M., they found the accused coming out of the rice mill with an iron pipe.
(h) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also the material objects recovered from the accused, pursuant to the confessional statement made by him, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition given by the Investigating Officer, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P12, the chemical analyst''s report, and Ex.P17, the serologist''s report. The further investigation was taken up by P.W.26, the Inspector of Police. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and also relied on 27 exhibits and 13 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. On his side, the accused examined himself as D.W.1, and his father was examined as D.W.2. On completion of evidence on both sides, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and on scrutiny and consideration of the submissions made, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of both the charges and hence found him guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the Appellant.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The learned Counsel cautioned the Court by putting forth the settled principle of law that in a given case like this, where the case is exclusively rested upon the circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances placed must constitute a chain without a snap and be pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one could have committed the offence. The learned Counsel would urge that in the case on hand, if this cardinal principle is applied, the prosecution case should have been rejected by the trial Court since no one circumstance placed by the prosecution, would be pointing to the guilt of the accused.
5. According to the learned Counsel, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on the night hours of 17.7.2007, and P.W.16 is the Doctor who has been examined to speak about the homicidal death, and according to him, when a person fell down from the upper part of the staircase, such an injury was possible, and even Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that P.W.1 came to know that he fell down from the staircase, and the injuries were caused, and thus it would be quite clear that at the earliest, when the report was given, the witness has stated that it was only accidental when he fell down, and subsequently it was an afterthought that the accused has actually been involved.
6. Added further the learned Counsel that the accused was examined as D.W.1; that according to him, he was actually away from the place of occurrence for a few days and thus he was not at all involved; and that D.W.2, the father of the accused, has also corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 that his son was away for a few days, and he was not available in the village, and nothing was recovered from his house.
7. Added further the learned Counsel that as far as P.Ws.7 and 10 are concerned, they were all actually employees, and therefore they came forward to give falsehood; that it is pertinent to point out that it is true that the accused asked for some money, and it was actually opposed by the deceased, and he informed to others that the deceased did not know who he was; and that in view of the suspicion, all the witnesses have come forward to give such a false evidence.
8. The learned Counsel would further submit that in the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that there was anything that was stolen; that the accused had no reason to cause the death of the deceased or steal the articles as put forth by the prosecution; that in view of these reasons, all or any one of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution, did not point to the guilt of the accused; that apart from that, all the documents pertaining to the recovery, were created to suit the prosecution case; that the trial Court has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment has got to be set aside by acquitting the accused.
9. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
10. It is not in controversy that one Sundaram the husband of P.W.2, following an incident that had taken place in his rice mill on the night hours of 17.7.2007, was taken to the hospital at Ganapathipalayam, and thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode, where he was declared dead. The case was registered by P.W.24, the Sub Inspector of Police, immediately u/s 302 IPC. The investigation was taken up by P.W.25, the Inspector of Police. After the inquest on the dead body, was over, it was subjected to postmortem by the Medical Person, who was examined as a witness before the Court namely P.W.16. The postmortem certificate is also marked as Ex.P9. From the evidence of the postmortem Doctor and also the contents of the postmortem certificate, it would be quite clear that he died out of homicidal violence. On scrutiny of the above evidence, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that he should have died only out of homicidal violence. The first contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that he fell down from the staircase and sustained injury on the skull, and thus he died. In order to fortify his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the evidence of the Doctor at the time of cross-examination. But, this Court is unable to agree with that contention. The Doctor has noticed only one external injury, and that was also found on the skull. No other injury or abrasion or any other injury was found on any part of the skull or body. If a person falls down from the upper part of the staircase and sustains injury, all other injuries should have been found. But only one injury is found on the skull of the deceased. It would be quite clear that the injury should have been caused by attacking him with a weapon like M.O.6, iron pipe. Therefore, it can be well stated that the prosecution has clearly proved that the death was due to the homicidal violence.
11. True it is, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, and it relied upon the circumstantial evidence. This Court is also mindful of the caution made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant pointing to the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Apex Court. But, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the circumstances placed and proved before the trial Court, would be clinchingly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Admittedly, during the relevant time, the Appellant/accused was employed under the deceased in his rice mills. On 15.7.2007, he was demanding some money, and at first, the deceased refused to pay. But, when he made the payment of Rs. 200/- through P.W.6, he scolded him, and it was witnessed by the employees of the rice mill namely P.Ws.4, 6, 7 and 10. Thereafter, the Appellant/accused has informed to P.Ws.7 and 10 that the mill owner namely the deceased, did not know about him, and he will show to him in future. Following the same, on 17.7.2007 at about 8.00 P.M., when P.W.8 was in his wine shop, the Appellant/accused went over there and took liquor, and hence it would be clearly indicative of the fact that he was very well available in the village on the night hours of 17.7.2007. Now, the contention of the Appellant''s side that he was away for a few days, and he did not come to the village has got to be rejected. P.W.9 has categorically spoken to the fact that at about 12.45 A.M., he found the Appellant/accused near the place of occurrence. According to P.W.10, the Appellant/accused asked him about the time when he found him nearby the place of occurrence during the night hours. Apart from that, the strong circumstance, in the considered opinion of the Court, is the evidence of P.Ws.11, 12 and 13 to the effect that the Appellant/accused was actually coming from the rice mill with the iron pipe at about 4.30 A.M. The dead body was actually found at about 7.00 A.M. The evidence of these witnesses recorded by the trial Court, would be clearly indicative of the fact that the Appellant/accused was available at the village, and he was also found nearby the place, and he was coming out of the rice mill at about 4.30 A.M. That apart, on arrest, the accused came forward to give a confessional statement, and the same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. One of the same witnesses was examined. The evidence of that witness remained unshaken. That apart, consequent upon the confessional statement, he has produced M.O.6, iron pipe, and M.O.7, bloodstained shirt. Thus the recovery of the weapon of crime from the accused on confession, as spoken to by the witness, would be pointing to the nexus of the crime with the accused.
12. Apart from all the above, the prosecution to its advantage, had the scientific evidence. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis, and it brought forth chemical analyst''s report and serologist''s report. Ex.P17, the serologist''s report, would clearly indicate that the clothes worn by the deceased, and also the iron pipe and shirt recovered from the accused, contained the same human blood. The blood group was also tallying. All would clearly be indicative of the fact that it was the accused who has committed the crime and none else. Added further, when he actually moved from the place, he has also stolen the money in respect of which an additional statement was given, and it was also recorded. Thereafter, the provision u/s 381 of IPC was also included, and that was also proved by the recovery of money immediately on his arrest on 20.7.2007. Under the circumstances, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and recorded above, do not carry merit, and they are to be rejected. This Court is able to see that the trial Judge has marshalled the evidence proper, considered the same and taken a correct decision in which this Court is unable to notice any reason to disturb either factually or legally.
13. In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
