1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Sessions Division, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, made in S.C.No.47 of 2008 whereby the appellants, three in number, stood charged under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.Ws.1 and 6 are the sisters of the deceased Raju. P.W.1 was living with Raju at Batlada, and they were unmarried. Raju purchased a piece of land from A-1 measuring 3.5 acres, and the sale consideration was partly paid. But, the remainder remained unpaid. A-1 was demanding the money through P.W.13. But, the deceased gave a reply that he had no funds, and he would pay in future. Thus A-1 and the deceased were on inimical terms. A-2 and A-3 were close associates of A-1.
(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 16.4.2008, at about 4.30 P.M., A-1 armed with a vettukathi, A-2 with a vettukathi and A-3 with a stick came to the place of occurrence namely field, where the deceased was standing. On seeing him, A-1 threw chilli powder on his face and inflicted a cut injury with M.O.1, vettukathi, on his right leg, when A-2 cut him on his neck with a vettukathi, M.O.2. A-3 attacked him with the stick, M.O.3, on different parts of the body. This was witnessed by P.W.2, who was working in the tea garden of Raju. Immediately, A-1 to A-3 fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.2 found Raju dead. Immediately, he informed to P.W.4 who was standing in the nearby garden. Then both of them called P.W.3, who was also standing in the neighbouring garden. All of them came to the spot and found the dead body, and P.W.3 in turn informed to P.W.7, a close relative, who in turn informed to P.Ws.1 and 6. Thereafter, both the sisters of the deceased came to the place of occurrence.
(c) After seeing the dead body of Raju, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police, was present, to whom she gave Ex.P1, the report, at about 9.00 P.M. Then a case came to be registered in Crime No.132/2008 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court.
(d) The investigation was taken up by P.W.20, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, who proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P16. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Raju in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P17. He also secured material objects from the place of occurrence, and photographs were also taken. They are marked as M.O.7 series. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem.
(e) P.W.17, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Kothagiri, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raju and has issued Ex.P12, the postmortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorragic shock due to grievous injuries.
(f) Pending further investigation, when P.W.15, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), was in his office, A-1 appeared before him on 17.4.2008, and also gave an extra-judicial confession which is marked as Ex.P5. Along with his report, Ex.P6, P.W.15 produced A-1 along with M.O.1, vettukathi, before the Investigator. He was arrested by P.W.20. He also gave a confessional statement. The same was recorded. Pursuant to the same, the Investigator came to know about the involvement of A-2 and A-3. They were arrested. Both came forward to give confessional statements. The same were recorded. The admissible part of the confession of A-3 is marked as Ex.P19. They also produced M.Os.2 and 3, vettukathi and stick respectively, which were recovered under a cover of respective mahazars. They were sent for judicial remand.
(g) All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department pursuant to the requisition given by the Investigator through the concerned Court which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P23, the chemical analyst's report, and Exs.P24 and P25, the serologist's reports. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 20 witnesses and also relied on 25 exhibits and 11 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined, but one document was marked as Ex.D1 on their side. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the appellants guilty and awarded the above punishment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel made the following submissions:
(a) According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 4.30 P.M. on 16.4.2008, and P.W.2 was the only eyewitness. P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all for more reasons than one. According to P.W.2, he was not standing nearby the place of occurrence, but was actually standing in the garden which belonged to him and which was situated adjacent to that of the deceased Raju.
(b) The Investigator would claim that the statement of P.W.2 was recorded on the very day. It has not reached the Court that day, but on 17.4.2008.
5. Added further the learned Counsel that the name of P.W.2 is not found mentioned in Ex.P1, the report, or in the inquest report; and that it would be clearly indicative of the fact that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.
6. Pointing to the evidence of P.W.7, the learned Counsel would submit that he was informed by P.W.3 about the occurrence, but nowhere he has whispered that P.W.3 informed him that P.W.2 witnessed the occurrence; and that all these things would clearly indicate that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.
7. Commenting upon the evidence of P.W.15, the VAO, the learned Counsel would submit that the trial Judge has rightly rejected the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to him since it has actually come into existence after the investigation has commenced; that under the circumstances, that part of the evidence has been rightly rejected by the trial Court; and that barring the above evidence, the prosecution had no evidence to offer.
8. Criticising the case of the prosecution insofar as A-2 and A-3, the learned Counsel would submit that the only eyewitness P.W.2 has categorically stated that first time, he met A-2 and A-3 only at the place of occurrence; that no description or features are given in Ex.P1, the complaint; that under the circumstances, identification parade should have been conducted, but not done so; that it can be well stated that there is no evidence insofar as A-2 and A-3; but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and they have got to be acquitted.
9. Added further the learned Counsel that as far as A-1 was concerned, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has actually proved the factual matrix that A-1 attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence, he has attacked him only on the right leg; that it would indicate that he has no intention to cause the death of the deceased; that under the circumstances, the act of A-1 would not attract the penal provision of murder, and it has got to be considered by this Court.
10. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
11. It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Raju, following the inquest made by P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, was subjected to postmortem by P.W.17, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital. He has also given the postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, to the effect that Raju died of haemorragic shock due to grievous injuries. The fact that Raju died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.
12. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellants, the prosecution though examined number of witnesses, has marched P.W.2 as the only eyewitness. Indian Criminal Jurisprudence does not look for quantity of evidence, but only quality of evidence. It is true that P.W.2 was the only eyewitness. But, if his evidence inspires the confidence of the Court, there cannot be any impediment in accepting the same to sustain a conviction.
13. In the case on hand, at the outset, the Court has to point out that so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, though the prosecution came forward with the specific charge that A-2 attacked the deceased with a vettukathi, M.O.2, and also A-3 with a stick, M.O.3, the prosecution did not have suffice evidence to prove their guilt. According to P.W.2, he has actually seen both A-2 and A-3 only at the time of occurrence, and he has not seen them earlier, and thus it would be quite clear that A-2 and A-3 were only strangers. That apart, no description of A-2 or A-3 is actually given. Under the circumstances, there arose a necessity to conduct a test identification parade, but it was not actually done in the instant case. It is settled position of law that the identification parade proceeding was only corroborative piece of evidence, and the evidence of the eyewitness before the Court as to the identity of the accused, is the substantive piece of evidence. In the case on hand, according to P.W.2, he was actually in the next field when the occurrence was going on, and he rushed to the spot before which all of them started. It would be quite clear that at the time of occurrence, the incident could not have caused a dent in the memory of P.W.2 insofar as A-2 and A-3. Under the circumstances, identification parade was a must in the case, but the Investigator never requested for any identification parade, nor was it conducted. Hence it cannot be stated that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-2 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt as the law would require, and they have got to be acquitted from the charge.
14. Insofar as A-1, the Court has to necessarily disagree with the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants. According to P.W.2, he knew A-1 already, and the occurrence has taken place in a nearby field, and he has also witnessed the same. Apart from that, his evidence would go to show that it was he who informed to P.W.3 and P.W.4, who came to the spot, and P.W.3 in turn informed to the relative P.W.7, who thereafter, brought the matter to the knowledge of P.Ws.1 and 6, the sisters of the deceased. Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the name of P.W.2 did not find place in the FIR cannot be a reason to disbelieve the evidence since the occurrence has taken place at about 4.30 P.M. on 16.4.2008. The investigation has commenced at about 9.45 P.M., and the inquest was conducted throughout night. The statement of P.W.2 was actually recorded, and it has reached the Judicial Magistrate on 17.4.2008 itself. This would be quite indicative of the fact that P.W.2 should have been an eyewitness to the occurrence. That apart, as could be seen from the inquest report, the name of P.W.2 is mentioned therein. The appellants' side is unable to point out any reason or circumstance why P.W.2 should give evidence against A-1, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in accepting the evidence of P.W.2.
15. The other circumstance which was against A-1, is his appearance before the VAO, P.W.15, and giving an extra-judicial confession as found in Ex.P5. Along with the report, Ex.P6, he was produced before the Investigator along with M.O.1, vettukathi, which was recovered and produced before the Court. Under the circumstances, the trial Judge was not correct in rejecting that part of the evidence in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC (CRI) 470 (SIVAKUMAR V. STATE) wherein it has been held thus:
"39.For all intent and purport, therefore, Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice has become redundant and nugatory, logical corollary whereof would be that there does not exist any embargo for an accused person to make an extra-judicial confession before a Village Administrative Officer.
40. We do not, thus, see any reason as to why such an extra-judicial confession could not be made before a Village Administrative Officer. With a view to exclude the admissibility of the confession made before a person, he must be a police officer. A Village Administrative Officer does not answer the description. While carrying out his duty to inform the police or the Magistrate in terms of Section 40 of the Code, the Village Headman does not act as a public servant removable only by or with the sanction of the local government nor does he act in his capacity as Magistrate. (See Pregada Balanagu v. Krosuru Kotayya (AIR 1937 Mad 578).)
41. We, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, are of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession by the appellant before the Village Administrative Officer was not inadmissible and, thus, could be relied upon."
16. In the instant case, the above pieces of evidence were available insofar as A-1, and hence the prosecution has proved that A-1 has attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence. Now the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that A-1 has actually attacked him only on the right leg and under the circumstances, there is nothing to indicate or infer that he had got any intention to commit murder cannot be countenanced for the following reasons. It is not in controversy that A-1 sold the land to the deceased, and the deceased did not make the balance payment, and he was all along making demands, and the deceased was also evading. It is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place at about 4.30 P.M. on 16.4.2008. At that time, there was neither a demand nor a quarrel pursuant to which the incident has taken place. But A-1 armed with M.O.1 vettukathi, along with others came to the spot namely field, and attacked him. Now, at this juncture, it remains to be stated that had he not the intention to do away with the deceased, there was no need for him to come to the field with a deadly weapon and attack him suddenly. That apart, the medical opinion canvassed would clearly indicate that Raju died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of A-1 has caused the death, and hence the judgment of the trial Court finding A-1 guilty of murder and awarding life imprisonment has got to be sustained.
17. As regards A-2 and A-3, they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case. The fine amounts if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them.
18. The conviction of A-1 under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC is modified, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.302 IPC. The sentence imposed by the trial Court, is confirmed.
19. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed