Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.08.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI Crl.A(MD)No.72 of 2015 Arumugam @ Arumuganainar .Appellant/Accused versus State through The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.1135 of 2012).Respondent/Complainant PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.347 of 2013, dated 18.09.2014.
!For Appellant : Mr.D.Malaichamy for Mr.R.Ramasamy ^For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.
Public Prosecutor.
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.347 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
By Judgment, dated 18.09.2014, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C.and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was on Mr.Murugesan.
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.
P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the father-in-law of the deceased.
The deceased was residing at Kannapiran Street, Reddiarpatti Village.
The accused belongs to a neighbouring village, known as, Veeralaperunchelvi Village.
On 22.08.2012 at about 03.00 p.m., the accused had come to the house of the deceased and demanded the deceased to pay Rs.200/-, which the deceased had earlier taken as loan from the accused.
At that time, P.W.1 told him that in the event her husband failed to repay the amount, she herself would pay the same to him.
This resulted in a petty quarrel between them.
The accused then left the house of the deceased.
While leaving, he abused the deceased in filthy language.
3.On the same day at about 04.00 p.m., P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.2 were all sitting on the steps of the main entrance of the house of the deceased.
At that time, the accused came to the said place in a motor cycle, where the deceased was sitting, stopped the motor cycle and while sitting on the motor cycle, he took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on his stomach.
P.W.1 and P.W.2 raised alarm.
Quickly, the accused left the place in the motor cycle with the knife.
Due to the stab on the stomach, there caused a deep injury on the stomach, through which, intestine was protruding.
Immediately, P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the deceased to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai.
4.P.W.14, Dr.Satheeshrajan, an Assistant Surgeon attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, examined the deceased at 05.50 p.m.on 22.08.2012.
He had been brought by P.W.1.
On examining the deceased, P.W.14 found that he was already dead.
Therefore, he declared him dead and transferred the dead body to the mortuary.
Immediately, he sent a death intimation to the Police Station under Ex.P.6.
5.The death intimation was received in the hospital by a Police Constable and the same was brought to the Police Station.
When the same was just brought to the Police Station, P.W.1 had also come to the Police Station.
She presented a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police at Perumalpuram Police Station.
P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.1, the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1135 of 2012 under Section 302 I.P.C.Ex.P.13 is the FiRs.Information Report.
Then, he forwarded these two documents to Court through a Police Constable.
The learned Judicial Magistrate received the same at 09.50 p.m.on 22.08.2012.
P.W.13, handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
6.P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation at 08.00 p.m.He immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses.
He found a bloodstained rope at the place of occurrence.
He recovered the same under a mahazer in the presence of witnesses.
Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses.
7.On 23.08.2012, at 08.00 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.18, the Inquest Report.
Then he forwarded the body for post-mortem.
P.W.11, Dr.Sudalaimuthu, Senior Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.
He noticed the following injuries: ?.1.A vertical stab injury of size 7 cm x 3.5 cm x Peritoneal cavity deep seen over front of left side of abdomen 1 cm left of anterior midline.
Smell bowel loops found protruding out thorugh the stab injury.
Right and left margins are regular.
Both margins formed sharp angle in upper and lower end.
Upper end of stab injury was 11 cm below Xiphisternum.
Lower end of stab injury was 1 cm above and left of umbilicus with 1 cm long trailing mark seen in lower end of stab injury.
On dissection of Abdomen: Peritoneal cavity contains 1.5 litres of fluid blood and about 200 gms of clotted blood.
The stab injury pierces the anterior abdominal wall and enters into the peritoneal cavity.
Underlying anterior and posterior wall of stomach found stabbed in a length of 5.5 cm in the lower part of the body of the stomach near greater curvature.
Underlying mesentry, posterior wall of peritoneum, body of pancreas and spleenic artery found vertically stabbed.
The stab injury ends as a point in the left side para vertebral muscles at the level of lumbar vertebra no.1 and 2.
other findings: Peritoneal cavity ?.
described.
Pleural cavities ?.
Nill specific.
Heart ?.
described.
Coronaries-patent.
Hyoid Bone ?.
Intact.
Stomach contains about 50 gms of partially digested cooked rice particles with fruity odour, Mucosa ?.
pale.
Lung, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys ?.
c/s pale.
Small intestine ?.
contains about 10 ml of light brown colour fluid with fruity odour, Mucosa ?.
pale.
Bladder ?.
contains about 20 ml of urine.
Brain ?.
c/s pale.
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis?.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury to abdomen.
Ex.P.9 is the Post-mortem Certificate.
8.Continuing the investigation, P.W.15 forwarded the material objects to Court.
On 24.08.2012 at 11.30 a.m., he arrested the accused at Konkanthanparai Village in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.
On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife and the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-AD-0302.
In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, P.W.15 took P.W.8 and another witness to his house and took out the motor cycle and the knife from the hideout, behind his house.
P.W.15 recovered the same under a mahazer.
On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and forwarded the material objects to Court.
He made a request to the learned Magistrate to forward the material objects for chemical examination.
Accordingly, they were sent for chemical examination and a report was received.
Ex.P.11 is the Report of the Assistant Director of Government Forensic Lab, Tirunelveli and Ex.P.12 is the Serology Report of the Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.
According to Ex.P.11, no blood-stain was found on the knife, which was recovered from the accused.
According to Ex.P.12, the bloodstains found on the dress materials of the deceased were of 'O' group.
P.W.15 collected all the materials and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
9.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C.The accused denied the same.
10.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 15 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects.
11.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.5 is the father-in-law of the deceased and they have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.
P.W.3 is the neighbour of the deceased and he has also spoken about the occurrence.
P.W.4, yet another neighbour, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.
P.W.6 is a Constable attached to the Perumalpuram Police Station, who has spoken about the fact that he carried the dead body of the deceased from the mortuary to the hospital for post- mortem.
P.W.7 has spoken to the fact that he received the cover containing Ex.P.1 from the Sub Inspector of Police on 22.08.2012 and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate at 09.50 p.m.on the same day.
P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.
P.W.8 has also not spoken anything incriminating the accused.
He only stated that the deceased and P.W.8 were engaged in the same business.
P.W.9 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketc.by P.W.15 in his presence.
P.W.10 is the Constable, who received the death intimation from the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai on 22.08.2012 at 06.00 p.m.and brought the same to the Police Station.
P.W.11, Dr.Sudalaimuthu has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.
P.W.12 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects, except the knife.
She has stated that in the dress materials of the deceased, human blood of 'O' group was detected.
P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case.
P.W.14, Dr.Satheeshrajan, has spoken to the fact that on 22.08.2012, at 05.50 p.m., the deceased was brought by P.W.1 and on examining him, he declared him as dead.
He has also spoken about the death intimation forwarded by him to the Police Station.
P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done.
12.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.
However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document.
13.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant as detailed in the fiRs.paragraph of this Judgment and sentenced him accordingly.
That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
14.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in this case, the original complaint preferred by P.W.1 at the place of occurrence as soon as the arrival of the police officer, has been suppressed and instead, Ex.P.1, which is a document prepared out of consultation has been substituted.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, when initiation of FiRs.Information Report is doubtful, the entire case of the prosecution should be doubted.
The learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that according to P.W.1 immediately after the arrival of the police to the place of occurrence, the deceased was still alive and he was in a position to speak.
He further stated that he made a statement and the same was duly recorded by the Police Officer, but the same has also been suppressed.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the place of occurrence has not been duly proved without any doubt.
According to him, P.W.1 has admitted that after receiving the stab injury, half portion of the body of the deceased fell into the house and another half fell outside the house.
In other words, the upper part of the body of the deceased had fallen into the house and the lower part of the body had fallen on the street.
But, according to the Inspector of Police, the occurrence had takenplace only in the street.
This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution, the learned counsel for the appellant contended.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the occurrence would not have been happened in the manner as it is projected by the prosecution, because according to the eye witnesses, the deceased was sitting on the steps at a height of 4 feet from the road.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the accused would not have been in a position to stab him, by sitting in his motor cycle.
The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though it is claimed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were present and their dress materials were stained with blood, those materials have been suppressed by the prosecution.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 itself is doubtful.
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal by getting the benefit of doubt.
16.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would however vehemently oppose this appeal.
According to him, P.W.1 during the couRs.of cross- examination, has categorically stated that when the deceased was still sitting on the steps, he was stabbed by the accused.
Therefore, it cannot be said that it is highly improbable for the accused to stab the deceased.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that absolutely there is no delay in lodging the FiRs.Information Report and the same has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate without delay.
So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no such difference between the steps and the street, after all, they are side by side.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.3, in chief-examination, has categorically stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused was fully drunk and he caused stab injury on the stomach of the deceased.
The occurrence as narrated by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 cannot be disbelieved, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended.
He would further contend that the medical evidence clearly corroborated the eye witness account.
Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court do not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
17.We have considered the above submissions.
18.According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged occurrence had takenplace at 04.00 p.m.on 22.08.2012.
Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the hospital.
According to the Doctor, the deceased was brought to the hospital at 05.50 p.m.He has further stated that he was brought by P.W.1.
Thereafter, the complaint was made at 07.00 p.m.on 22.08.2012 and the FiRs.Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 09.50 p.m.itself.
In our considered view, after the occurrence, the endeavour of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and others would have been to save the deceased by taking him to the hospital.
They would not have thought to immediately go to the Police Station.
Though, it is stated by P.W.1 that Police had arrived at the scene of occurrence, where some statements appear to have been given, we do not believe this part of the evidence of P.W.1 in the light of the evidence of P.W.15.
P.W.1 is after-all an illiterate woman, who would have, due to loss of memory, stated that the police came to the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.
The time difference of 15 minutes for the arrival of police, cannot be given any weightage at all, because of the illiteracy of P.W.1.
Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that immediately after the occurrence, within 15 minutes, the police officer came to the place of occurrence, to whom, the deceased made a statement as well as P.W.1 made a statement, cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
19.In our considered view, Ex.P.1 is the earliest document and the same therefore vouches for the truthfulness of the allegations made therein.
The said statement is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.as it is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
20.Now turning to the occurrence, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have categorically stated that when P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased were sitting on the steps, the accused came there in his motor cycle, stopped the motor cycle in front of the house of the deceased and without even getting down from the motor cycle, he took out the knife and stabbed him on the stomach.
Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is not possible for the accused to stab the deceased while sitting in the motor cycle, going by the height of the steps, in our considered view, the said argument does not persuade at all.
P.W.1, during the couRs.of cross- examination, has stated that while the deceased was being stabbed, he was still sitting on the steps.
Therefore, we hold that it was not impossible for the accused to have stabbed the deceased, while sitting in the motor cycle.
The contrary argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected.
21.The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of the contradiction regarding the place of occurrence.
P.W.1 has stated that the half of the body namely upper part of the body fell into the house and the lower part of the body fell in to the street, after the occurrence.
But, according to the Investigating Officer, the occurrence had takenplace on the road.
In our considered view, more weightage cannot be given to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, because his evidence is hit by hearsay evidence.
Since the deceased had already been taken from the place of occurrence, the proper witness to speak about the way in which the deceased had fallen, is only P.W.1 and P.W.2.
Therefore, we believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that after receiving stab injury on his stomach, the upper part of the body fell inside the compound wall and the lower part of the body fell outside the same.
So far as the non-recovery of bloodstained clothes of the witnesses is concerned, we do not find any point in favour of the accused.
The fact remains that according to the learned counsel for the appellant, only P.W.1 had brought the deceased to the hospital.
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were present at the house at the time of occurrence.
Therefore, the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 as well as P.W.3 is highly probable and we do not find any reason to reject their oral testimony.
22.Now turning to the medical evidence, the doctor had found a deep stab injury on the stomach, through which intestine was protruding out.
This injury, in our considered view, would be sufficient in the ordinary couRs.of nature to cause the death.
It cannot be said that the injury caused by the accused was not intentional.
From the narration of all facts, we hold that the accused came to the place of occurrence with the knife in his hands with the intention only to cause injury to the deceased.
We also hold that the stab injury on the stomach caused by the accused was sufficient in the ordinary couRs.of nature to cause death.
This act of the accused clearly falls within the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C.and thus the accused is liable to be punished under Section 302 I.P.C.23.Turning to the sentence, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, which does not require any interference at all by this Court as it is the minimum sentence.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
24.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.347 of 2013, dated 18.09.2014, is hereby confirmed.
To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..