S. Nagamuthu, J.@mdashThe appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 82 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. He stood charged for offence u/s 302 IPC. The trial Court by judgment dated 22.12.2006 convicted him u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this criminal appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case was one Mr. Thirumurugan. He belonged to Pammanendal village. The accused also belongs to the same village. The deceased belonged to AIADMK party, whereas the accused belongs to a different political party. It is alleged that 17.1.2004, happened to be the birth anniversary of the founder leader of AIADMK party. P.W. 6 was the then local leader of the AIADMK party, In order to celebrate the birth anniversary of MGR, P.W. 6 had arranged for playing MGR songs in the village. The deceased was engaged for the said purpose of playing the songs in a speaker set. Accordingly, the deceased was playing MGR songs at about 5.30 p.m. on the date. At that time, the accused came to the spot and wanted the deceased to play songs of films starred by his leader Mr. Vijayakanth. The deceased declined. This resulted in a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. P.Ws. 1 to 3, who were present somewhere near the place of occurrence, rushed to the spot and persuaded them. Thus, the quarrel ended. Thereafter, the accused went to his house. The deceased closed the operation and proceeded to the house of P.W. 6 to inform him about the happenings. At that time, the accused suddenly returned from his house with M.O. 1 Tharakambu, (A long stick measuring 6 feet and 41/2 inches with a long sharp tiped metal portion with a metal hook measuring one foot and 3/4 inches at the tip). Using force, he stabbed the deceased on his chest with the said Tharakambu. The deceased fell down. P.Ws. 1 to 3 raised alarm. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.
1.1. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. P.W. 2 is a neighbour and P.W. 3 is the cousin of P.W. 1. All the three found the deceased alive, but with bleeding injuries. With a view to give him medical attention, they immediately shifted him to the nearby bus stop, so as to take him to the hospital. But, even while he was brought to the bus stand, he died. Leaving the dead body there itself, P.W. 1 went to the Kovilan Gulam Police Station. P.W. 11 was the then Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to the said police station to whom, P.W. 1 presented, Exhibit P-1, complaint. On receipt of the same, P.W. 1 registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2004 u/s 302 IPC, Exhibit P12 is the FIR, Then, he forwarded Exhibits P-1 and P-12 to the jurisdictional magistrate and then handed over the case diary to P.W. 12 for investigation.
2. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W. 12 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-2 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W. 4 and another witness. Then, he prepared Exhibit P-13, a rough sketch, in the presence of the same witnesses, Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased commencing from 10.30 p.m. During the same, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Exhibit P-14 is the inquest report. Then he forwarded the body for postmortem.
3. P.W. 7, Doctor Sundaram, was an Assistant Surgeon attached to Kamuthi Hospital. On 18.1.2004, at 11.00 a.m. he commenced autopsy on the body of the deceased. During autopsy, he found a single external injury on the body of the deceased. His findings are as follows:
External Injury: Lacerated stab injury 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 depth four inches below the left nipple on the 7th intercostal space. On exploration the wound passes through the 7th intercostals space injuring the lower lobe of the left lung. Thoracic cavity contains 2 litres of liquid blood. No fracture of ribs.
Lungs: pale 500 gms lower lobe injured. Heart: Pale empty 300 gm. Abdomen: uniform. Stomach contain 500 gms of partially digested food (rice) large intestine and small intestine contain small amount of faucal matter. Bladder empty. No fracture pelvic bones. Liver pale 1500 gms. Spleen pale 200 gms. Kidney pale 150 gms. Head: No fracture skull bones. Membrane intact. Brain 1300 gms. No intracranial haemorrhage. No fracture spine. Hyoid bone intact. Postmortem concluded at 1.00 p.m. on 18.1.2004.
Exhibit P-5 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the lone injury on the chest. He also opined that the said injury could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1.
4. Continuing the investigation, P.W. 12 examined a few more witnesses. Earlier, he had recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He sent the same to the Court with a request to the Court to forward the same to chemical examination.
5. On 19.1.2004, P.W. 12 handed over the investigation to P.W. 13. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W. 13 examined few more witnesses. He came to know that the accused had surrendered before the Magistrate. Therefore, he made a request to the learned Magistrate, Kamuthi, seeking police custody of the accused. Accordingly, police custody was ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate. He took the accused to police custody on 28.1.2004. At about 1.15 p.m., while he was in the police station, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W. 8 and another witness. Exhibit P-6 is the admissible portion of the voluntary confession. In the said statement, he had disclosed as to where he had hidden M.O. 1. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W. 13 and the witnesses to Karisal Kulam village, where, from a bush, he took out M.O. 1 Tharakambu. P.W. 13 recovered the same under Exhibit P-7 mahazar. He returned to the police station along with the accused and M.O. 1. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and he also forwarded the material object for chemical examination through Court.
6. P.W. 9, the Head Clerk of the Court on the orders of the Magistrate forwarded the material object for chemical examination. A report was received from the chemical analyst that there was no bloodstain on M.O. 1-Tharakambu. On completing the investigation, P.W. 13 laid charge sheet against the accused/appellant u/s 302 IPC. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and we have also perused the records carefully.
8. In this case, P. Ws. 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 happened to be the father. The house is situated somewhere near the place of occurrence, P.W. 2 is the neighbour and he was present at the time of occurrence, since he had gone to the nearby tea shop to have tea. P.W. 3 is the cousin of P.W. 1. He had also come for taking tea at the tea shop along with P.W. 2. Hence, the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted at all. They have clearly stated about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased some time before the actual occurrence. They have also stated that while the quarrel started between the accused and the deceased, they persuaded them not to quarrel. But the accused went to his house all the way and returned. In the meanwhile, the deceased had closed the playing of songs and he was proceeding to the house of P.W. 6. On his way, according to these witnesses, the accused intercepted and stabbed him on the chest. This was witnessed by all the three witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out any infirmity in these witnesses so as to disbelieve them.
9. The line of cross examination of these witnesses by the accused would go to show that he admits his presence at the scene of occurrence. But the defence taken is that the deceased party had gone to the spot, all armed with weapons, and attacked the house of the accused, attempted to attack the inmates, including the accused and in that process accidentally one of the blows attempted to be made on the accused by a person in the crowd had accidentally fallen on the deceased. This is too hard to believe. Though the accused took such a plea while cross examining P.Ws. 1 to 3, he has not stated so, when he was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Apart from that, there was no complaint to the police about the alleged attack made on the house of the accused. In the observation mahazar, the house of the accused is not found anywhere near the place of occurrence. It has not been brought on record by any evidence that an attempt was made on the life of the accused. Thus, it is crystal clear that the accused has taken a false plea, which itself is a circumstance against him. Thus, we find no infirmity in the findings of the lower Court that a single stab found on the deceased was caused only by the deceased.
10. Now, coming to the material object, M.O. 1 was identified by P.Ws. 1 to 3, as the one used by the accused to cause injury on the deceased. A description of M.O. 1 in the recovery mahazar would go a long way to show that it is not an ordinary weapon; Certainly, it is a dangerous one. The metal portion in that weapon itself is about one foot and 3/4 inches tip was there sharp and there was also a hook at the tip of the weapon. This weapon is not ordinarily used in the villages for any purpose like agricultural purpose. This weapon is, thus, used to make an attack on the human being. This weapon has been identified, as we have stated by P.Ws. 1 to 3.
11. P.W. 7, Doctor being conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has stated that the external wound has a corresponding internal injury to the lung. The lung was pierced; there was collection of blood in the thoracic cavity. He opined that the deceased died of the said injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
12. From the evidences of P. Ws. 1 to 3, coupled with the recovery of M.O. 1, and from the medical evidence, we hold that the act of the accused squarely falls within the third limb of Section 300 IPC. But, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the accused would fall under the exception (1) to Section 300 IPC.
13. But we do not find any force at all in the said argument. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was quarrel and in the said quarrel, the occurrence had taken place. But this argument cannot be accepted. If we look into the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, they have clearly stated that there was a quarrel and the quarrel ended at the intervention of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Thereafter on the persuasion made by P.Ws. 1 to 3, the accused went to his house and the deceased on the advise of P.Ws. 1 to 3, was proceeding to the house of P. W. 6. While, he had gone a considerable distance from the place of occurrence. The accused rushed to his house nurtured with M.O. 1 to the said place, intervened the deceased and then stabbed him with this dangerous weapon on the vital part, namely on the chest. Thus, in our considered opinion, there was no occasion for the accused to have been provoked, much less a grave and sudden provocation. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the accused would fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC is not acceptable.
14. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the act of the accused would atleast fall within the ambit of 4th exception to Section 300 IPC. In our considered opinion, the act of the accused neither falls within the ambit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. It is not as though the accused did not take undue advantage. The accused went to the house, then with the determination to do away with the deceased, returned to the place of occurrence with the formidable dangerous weapon. It is not as though the weapon is an ordinary one, or the same was found somewhere near the place of occurrence, which came handy to the accused to use the same against the deceased. Thus, the nature of the weapon used, the time taken for the accused to go to his house and the manner in which he returned, the place of the body chosen to cause injury and the force used will all cumulatively go to show that the act of the accused does not fall within the ambit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC Therefore, this argument is also rejected.
15. In view of all the above discussion, we hold that the act of the accused would fall within the third limb of Section 300 IPC and it does not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts u/s 302 IPC. In respect of quantum of punishment, we do not find any infirmity. In view of the same, we do not find any merit at all in the appeal. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, is confirmed.
