S. Nagamuthu, J.
1. The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. There were five other accused, who were arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 to A6. The trial Court framed as many as 3 charges against the accused. The first charge was against A1 to A5 under Section 148 IPC; the second charge was against A6 under Section 147 IPC and the third charge was against all the six accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 30.08.2007, the trial Court convicted the A1 to A5 under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court has also convicted A6 under Sections 147 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/3rd accused has come up with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Mahalingam. PW1 is his brother. They were residing at Sakkimangalam village in Madurai District. The deceased was running a barotta stall near a bus stop at L.K.B.Nagar. He was also running a tea shop at the same place. On 20.02.2005 PW1 got married. After 10 days of the marriage, ie., on 13.03.2005, the family members and the relatives of the bride had come into the house of PW1, as per the custom in the community. The deceased had participated in the function. The first accused also had come. At that time, on a petty matter, there arose a quarrel between the first accused and the deceased which resulted in a scuffle between them. At the end, the first accused challenged that either he should be alive or the deceased should be alive and not both. Throwing such a challenge, the accused left the said place. This is stated to be the motive for the first accused.
(b) PW1 has further alleged that since the shop was closed for about 2 days on account of the above family function, on 14.03.2005 at 9.45 p.m., PW1 and the deceased had gone to the shop to clean the shop and also to purchase the materials. Accordingly, they cleaned the shop. The deceased, who felt tired, started sleeping in front of the shop on the opposite side of the road. Around 10.30 p.m. all the six accused came to the said place. The accused 1 to 6 were armed with aruval and knife. On reaching the deceased, the accused surrounded him and indiscriminately cut him and stabbed him. PW1 cried for help. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The accused 2 to 6 were not already known to PW1. The deceased died instantaneously. PW1, immediately, went to Silaiman Police Station and made a complaint at 11.45 p.m. on 14.03.2005. In the complaint, he mentioned the name of the first accused as one of the assailants and mentioned the others as could be identified by him. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P31 is the FIR.
(c) The case was taken up for investigation by PW15, the then Inspector of Police. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at 12.45 a.m. on 15.03.2005. He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body to the doctor for postmortem.
(d) PW3 - Dr.Meyyalagan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.03.2010 at 10.15 a.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1.An antero posterior cut injury in the left fronto parietal region measuring 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep cutting the underlying left fronto parietal bone 9 cm x 1 cm x through and through, dura measuring 8 cm x linear x through and through and left fronto parietal lobe of brain measuring 8 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm.
2. A transversely oblique cut injury in the left occipital region measuring 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep cutting the underlying occipital bone 1 cm behind the middle of left ear.
On dissection:
The wound found cutting the underlying occipital bone 7 cm x 1 cm through and through. Dura 7 cm x linear x through and through and the left occipital lobe of brain 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 1cm.
3. A transversely oblique cut injury measuring 11 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on the right side neck below the lower border of right side mandible.
On Dissection:
The wound found cutting the underlying muscles, vessels (Carotid artery jugular vein) and nerves.
4. A transversely oblique cut injury in the right side of neck measauring 9 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep. 7 cm below wound No.3.
On Dissection:
The wound found cutting the underlying muscles, vessels (carotid artery, jugular vein) nerves and body of right side thyroid cartilage partially.
5. A transversely oblique stab wound in left chest front 7 cm medial to the left nipple measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x entering into the left pleural cavity.
On Dissection:
The wound passes obliquely downwards laterally piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves partially cutting the underlying 4th rib adjoining inter costal muscles, vessels, nerves and upper lobe of left lung measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x through and through. Left pleural cavity contains 300 ml of blood with cloths.
6.A transversely oblique stab injury on the right lateral chest in the posterior axillary line 20 cm below the posterior axillary fold 3 cm x 1 cm x entering the abdominal cavity.
On Dissection:
The wound passes obliquely upwards, forwards, piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and right lobe of liver measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm.
7. An oblique stab injury in the right lateral abdomen 13 cms above and lateral to the umbilicus measuring 4 cm x 1 cm c entering into the abdominal cavity piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and the right lobe of liver 3 cm x 0.5 cm, x 4 cm peritoneal cavity contains 500 ml of blood with clots.
8. A transversely oblique stab injury in the left lateral abdomen 11 cm left to the umbilicus measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x entering into abdominal cavity through which loops of small intestine protruding out.
On Dissection:
The wound passes downwards, inwards, piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and the ileal part of small intestine 150 cm away from the ileocaecal junction.
9. A transversely oblique stab injury in the back of right side chest 8 cm below and medial to the inferior angle of right scapula measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x entering into the abdominal cavity.
On Dissection:
The wound passes obliquely downwards, forwards, and medially piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and the upper pos of right kidney 2.5 cm x 1 cm x through and through.
10. An antero posterior cut injury in the right fronto parietal regional measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep found cutting the outer table of skull bone 8 cm above the inner aspect of right eyebrow.
11. A transversely oblique cut injury in the right parietal area measuring 4cm x 1 cm x bone deep 9 cm above the right ear lobe.
12. An antero posterior cut injury in the left parietal region measuring 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep cutting the underlying left parietal bone.
13. A transversely oblique cut injury in the left frontal region. 4 cm above the left eyebrow measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
14. An anteroposterior cut injury in the left temporal region 2 cm above the left ear lobe measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
15. A transversely oblique cut injury cutting the upper part of right ear lobe and adjoining cheek scalp measuring 12 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
16. A transversely oblique cut injury cutting the middle of right ear lobe scalp and right side cheek measuring 12 cm x 1 cm x bone deep cutting the outer table of underlying skull bone.
17. A transversely oblique cut injury cutting the lower part of right ear lobe and adjoining right cheek measuring 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
18. A transversely oblique cut injury 1 cm below and in front of right ear lobe cutting the right cheek measuring 6cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep.
19. A transversely oblique cut injury on the outer aspect of right knee joint measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
20. A transversely oblique cut injury on the outer aspect of right leg 10 cm below the right knee joint measuring 8 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep.
On Dissection:
The wound found cutting the underlying muscles vessels and nerves.
21. An oblique cut injury on the outer aspect of right wrist measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.
22. An oblique cut injury over the top of left shoulder measuring 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.
23. A transversely oblique cut injury in the back of left wrist measuring 8 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep.
On Dissection :
The wound found cutting the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and lower part of left forearm bone partially.
24. Five transversely oblique incised wounds in the front of middle of left leg each measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep to 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep separated by 0.5 cm 1.5 cm 2.0 cm and 2.5 cm.
25. A transversely oblique stab wound on the front of upper part of chest 2 cm below the supra sternal notch measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm along the muscle plane with direction downwards and to the right.
26. A transversely oblique stab injury front of left chest 8 cm below and medial to the left nipple measuring 3cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm along the muscle plane with direction downwards and laterally.
27. A transversely oblique stab injury on the inner and of right clavicle measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm along the muscle plane with direction downwards and laterally.
28. Two transversely oblique stab injuries in the right side abdomens 5 cm above and lateral to the umbilicus separated by 2 cms each measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm along with muscle plane with direction downwards and laterally.
Ex. P3 is the Postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the cut injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like aruval and the stab injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like knife. He has also given opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.
(e) PW15, on the same day, at 8.30 a.m., arrested the accused 1, 5 and 6 at Virakanoor in the presence of the witnesses. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the knife. Similarly, the accused 5 and 6 also gave voluntary confession in which they disclosed the place where they had hidden the weapons. In pursuance of the same, PW15 recovered the same under mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the material objects also to the Court.
(f) The investigation was, thereafter, continued by his successor, PW16. He came to know that the other accused, including the appellant/A3, has been remanded in connection with the case in Crime No.1242 of 2005 under Section 395 IPC and they were lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. At his request, they were produced before the learned Magistrate and then, they were handed over to him for custody on 19.05.2005. While in custody, in the presence of the witnesses, the appellant/A3 made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden his patta knife. Similarly, A4 also gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a broken knife. In pursuance of the same, they took the Police and the witnesses to the respective places and produced the weapons and they were recovered by PW16 under mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, PW16 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.
(g) On the request made by the Investigating Officer, test identification parade was conducted in which the accused 4 to 6 were duly identified by PW1. At the request of the investigating officer, the material objects were sent for chemical examination. The report indicated that human blood was found on all the materials, including the weapons allegedly recovered from the accused. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
(h) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 35 documents and 17 material objects were marked.
(i) Out of the said witnesses, PW1 is the only eyewitness to the occurrence. He is the brother of the deceased. He has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence, including the overtact of each accused. PW2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW3 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW4 has spoken about the arrest and confession of the accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 and the subsequent recoveries of material objects from the hide out. PWs.5 to 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW9 has spoken about the confession made by A3 and A4, and the subsequent recoveries of material objects. PW10 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.
(J) PW11 has spoken about the arrest of the 2nd accused and recoveries made from him out of his disclosure statement. PW12, the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, has stated that he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic lab for chemical examination. PW13, the learned Magistrate, has spoken about the test identification parade and according to him, PW1 identified the appellant and the other accused. PW14 has spoken about the registration of the case and the complaint of PW1. PW15 and PW16 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.
(k) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on their side. The defence of the accused was total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted them, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A3 alone is before this Court with this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully.
4. It is brought to our notice that A1, A2 and A4 to A6 had filed Crl.A.(MD).Nos.515, 525, 641 and 646 of 2007 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.03.2008, dismissed all such appeals, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, acting on the solitaryevidence of PW1. The appellant/A3 stands in the same footing.
5. In this appeal, the contention of the appellant/A3 is that it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW1, the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. We find no force at all in the said argument. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary witness should always be doubted and rejected. If the evidence of a solitary witness inspires the confidence of the Court, there could be no legal impediment for the Court to act upon the said evidence of the solitary witness,which needs no corroboration from any other independent source. Thus, it is not quantity but the quality of the evidence that matters.
6.In this case, the presence of PW1 at the place of occurrence is seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant/A3. We find no force at all in the said argument, because he has stated even at the earliest opportunity when he made a complaint to the police that he had gone to the shop along with the deceased for the purpose of cleaning the same as the shop got closed for 2, 3 days on account of the family function and that after the shop was cleaned, since the deceased felt tired, he went to the opposite side of the road and started sleeping in front of the shop. PW1 was still continuing the work. It is only at that time all the accused came there armed with weapons. Thus, the presence of PW1 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. As a matter of fact, the trial Court believed the evidence of PW1 and acted upon the same which has been confirmed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the appeal filed by the other accused. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 and we find nothing on record to doubt even remotely about the credibility of the said witness. Thus, in our considered view, the presence of PW1 cannot be doubted. We find no reason to disbelieve him also.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/A3 would next submit that the appellant/A3 was not previously known to PW1. It is true. That is the reason why PW1 in the complaint did not mention the name of the appellant/A3. During the identification parade, he rightly identified the accused. In the conduct of the identification parade, we do not find any infirmity. Thus, the identity of the appellant/A3 has also been duly established by the prosecution.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/A3 would submit that the evidence of PW1 is contradicted by the medical evidence. We do not find any force at all in the said argument. As a matter of fact, as we have already pointed out, PW3, the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the cut injuries could have been caused by a weapon like aruval and the stab injuries could have been caused by a weapon like knife. PW1 has categorically stated about the individual overtact of the accused. Thus, in our considered view, there is no contradiction between the medical evidence and the eyewitness account of PW1. In fact, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the medical evidence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/A3 would submit that the FIR in this case is a concocted document. We do not find any merit at all in this argument. Immediately after the occurrence, on realising that the deceased was no more, PW1 had gone to the Police Station and made a complaint upon which the case was registered without any delay. There is also no delay in forwarding the complaint to the Court. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 that the FIR is a doubtful document, deserves only to be rejected. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant/A3 from his possession also lends further support to the prosecution. Thus, from these evidences, in our considered view, the prosecution has clearly established the charge against the appellant/A3.
10. Having come to the said conclusion, now, he have to examine as to what was the offence that was committed by the accused by the said Act. As per the prosecution, he was a member of an unlawful assembly. The assembly members came there only to do away with the deceased. Hence, the intention of the appellant/A3 itself was only to do away with the deceased and thus, he is liable to be punished under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
11. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only minimum punishment, which also does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
12. In the result, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal and accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant/A3 in S.C.No.126 of 2007 are confirmed.