Full Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
I-UNDER APPEAL
1. The appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') in Sessions Case No. 360 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil: The accused questions the correctness of the judgment dated 31-1-2003 rendered in the above stated sessions case, whereunder he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341, I. P. C., imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302, I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324, I. P. C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
II-CHARGE
2. The charge against the accused is that on 12-10-1999 at 6.45 a.m., he wrongfully restrained the deceased Samsudeen and his son, P. W. 1, which is punishable under Section 341, I. P. C., in the course of the same transaction, he attacked the deceased on his head by using a rice pounder, with an intention to cause his death and inflicted grievous injuries, causing the death of the deceased, which is punishable under Section 302, I. P. C., and also attacked P. W. 1 on his head with the same weapon and caused simple injury, which is punishable under Section 324, I. P. C.
III-CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution story, unleashed from the evidence of the witnesses examined by them, is as follows:
(a) The accused had some misunderstanding with his wife and the matter was referred to Jamath ten months prior to the date of occurrence. The deceased was a Member of the Jamath. The deceased advised the appellant to pronounce Talaq and hence, the appellant developed grudge over the deceased.
(b) P. W. 1, Abdul Kadar, is the son of the deceased. P. W. 8, Hanifa, is the father-in-law of the accused.
(c) On 12-10-1999 at about 6.45 a.m., the deceased and P. W. 1 went to their field. When they were near Marthal tank, the appellant waylaid them and by saying that 'you alone was instrumental for divorcing my wife', attacked the deceased with a rice pounder, M.O. 3, on his head, Who he again attacked the deceased, P. W. 1 intervened and prevented the attack. Hence, the accused attacked P. W. 1 on the leftside of his head with same rice pounder, M.O. 3, The deceased lost his consciousness and fell down. When P. W. 2, Mohammed Yusuf, and one Sheik Mohammed, who were coming behind P. W. 1 and the deceased, shouted, the. appellant left the scene of occurrence with the weapon. Brother of P. W. 1, one Saleem and two others took the deceased and P. W. 1 to Government Hospital.
(d) P. W. 9, Dr. Ramachandran, Kottar Government Hospital, admitted the deceased at 7.30 a.m. on 12-10-1999 and found a lacerated injury over saggital line of head, between two parietal bone 4 1/2' x 1 1/2' x bone deep bleeding from the wound present (NC) pupil unequal not reacting to light. Treatment was given to the deceased. P. W. 9 issued an accident register, Ex. P13, for the injury found on the deceased. P. W. 9 sent an intimation to the Police under Ex. P. 14.
(e) P. W. 9 also treated P. W. 1 for the injuries sustained by him and issued an accident register, Ex. P 15, certifying that the injury sustained by P. W. 1 was simple in nature.
(f) On receipt of Ex. P 14, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement, Ex. P1 and thereafter, the deceased was taken to Tirunelveli Government Hospital for better treatement. But, unfortunately, he was declared dead.
(g) P. W. 11 is the Head Constable, who received information, viz. Ex. P14, about the incident at 8.15 a.m. On 12-10-1999, he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1, viz. Ex. P1. P. W. 11, after returning to the police station, registered a case in Crime No. 720 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326, I. P. C. Ex. P19 is the printed FIR, which was despatched to the Court and handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 14, for investigation.
(h) P. W. 14, Sub Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation at 11.00 a.m. on 12-10-1999, visited the scene of occurrence at 11.10 a.m. and prepared observation mahazar, Ex. P12, in the presence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. P. W. 14 also drew rough sketch, Ex. P20. P. W. 14 recovered bloodstained earth, M.O. 4 and also collected sample earth, M.O. 5, from the scene of occurrence at 11.30 a.m., under mahazar, Ex. P9, attested by P. Ws. 6 and 7. P. W. 14 examined P. W. 2 and one Saleem and recorded their statements. At 1.30 p.m. he examined P. W. 1 and recorded his statement. He recovered bloodstained shirt, M.O. 1, worn by P.W.1 and also a bloodstained lungi, M.O. 2, worn by the deceased, under mahazar, Ex. PH, in the presence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. He also examined P. Ws. 6 and 7 and recorded their statements.
(i) On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased, Ex. P18, at 9.00 p.m., the case was altered into one under Section 302, I. P. C. Ex. P21 is the altered FIR, which was sent to the Magistrate Court through the Police Constable, P. W. 13.
(j) On receipt of the altered FIR, Ex. P21, Inspector of Police, P. W. 16, took up further investigation in the case and conducted inquest over the dead body on 13-10-1999 and prepared inquest report, Ex. P23. During the inquest, P. W. 16 examined panchayatdars, P. W. 2 and others and recorded their statements. P. W. 16 gave a requisition to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, for conducting postmortem on the dead body and deputed Constable, P. W. 12, for the said purpose.
(k) P. W. 13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
1. An antero posterior, sutured lacerated injury seen on the top of head, 17 c.m. above the root of nose, measuring 11 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone depth.
On dissection of scalp, skull and dura, sub scalpel contusion seen on the frontal,
raid parietal and occipital regions, measuring 25 c.m. x 20 c.m. Fracture of skull, left tempero parietal bones, 11 c.m. in length, seen. Diffused sub dural and sub arachnid haemorrhage seen over left cerebral seen overt left cerebral hemisphere. Laceration of brain left tempero parietal lobes. 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. and laceration of cereberal hemispheres. 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. each seen. Fracture base of skull, left middle cranial fossa, 3 c.m. in length present. 2. Abrasions seen in the following areas:
i) Back of right shoulder, 2 c.m. x 2 c.m.
ii) Middle of front of left thigh, 3 c.m. x 3 c.m.
iii) Right knee, 2 c.m. x 2 c.m.
iv) Right middle toe, 1 c.m. x 1 c.m.
v) Inner aspect of right foot, near base of big toe, 1 c.m. x 1 c.m.
The doctor, P. W. 13, who conducted post mortem, was of the opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Ex. P17 is the postmortem certificate.
(1) P. W. 16, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant at 3.00 p.m. on 13-10-1999, near Marthal tank. When P. W. 14 examined the accused in the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 4, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex. P. 24. Pursuant to the confession statement of the accused, rice pounder, M.O. 3, was recovered under Mahazar, Ex. P. 25, attested by P. Ws. 3 and 4. P. W. 16 examined P. Ws. 3 and 4 and recorded their statements. P. W. 16 sent the accused as well as material objects to the Court. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.
(m) P. Ws. 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
(n) P. W. 14, on completion of investigation, filed the final report in the Court against the accused on 19-11-1999.
(o) The prosecution, accordingly, examined 16 witnesses as P. Ws. 1 to 16, filed Exs. P 1 to P 25 and marked M. Os. 1 to 6.
IV-DEFENCE
4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he was innocent and had knows complicity with the crime, but was falsely implicated. That apart, the accused examined D. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. D1 to D5. D. W. 1 is Dr. Alexon Devasagayam, who treated the accused for acute psychiatrist episode from 10-12-1997 to 7-2-1998 and issued a certificate, Ex. D3, to that effect. D. W. 2 is Dr. Nagarajan, who had also treated the accused for his unsound mind and issued a certificate, Ex. D4, about his mental status. D. W. 3 is the brother-in-law of the accused, who speaks about the mental disorder of the accused. Ex. D1 is the medical notes, Ex. D2 series is the prescription and Ex. D5 series is the prescription and bills. Thus, the accused took the defence that he was not mentally sound at the time of occurrence.
V-