Velu Alias Chinna Veerakumaran Vs. the State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - reasonable doubt - section 302 of indian penal code, 1860 - accused and deceased engaged in regular illicit relations - accused got information about illicit relation from few other persons - accused inflicted many blows - incident witnesses by three eye witnesses from gate - witnesses afraid of accused - witnesses deposed before court in consistent manner - blood group found on cloth of accused similar to that of deceased - ocular and medical evidence corroborates each other - accused held guilty of murder. - - other visera like lungs, liver spleen, kidney were pale. this aspect of the evidence has been clearly spelt out in the evidence of p. 2 would say that in the morning the accused came and reprimanded the deceased and asked her to give back her money which was spent by him for her, and the deceased in turn said that she would not give any money and she would behave as she liked and that he was not the husband who tied 'thali' around her neck and so he had no business to question her. 1 made by the deceased to the accused stating that if you come anywhere near my house, i will beat you with chappal and broomstick, and i would go with any man whom i like, and you cannot question me as you are not my husband' has triggered the anger in the mind of the accused. before preparation of food is well corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, besides the injuries found on the vital parts of the body as referred in the evidence of the ocular witnesses. 38. as referred by the counsel appearing for the state, the manner in which the deceased was indisciminately cut clearly shows the mens-rea or the intent of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased.m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. in sessions case no. 27 of 1987 on the file of the principal sessions judge, tirunelveli, the appellant was charged and tried for an offence under section 302, i.p.c. and sentenced to undergo r.i. for life on the allegation that on 7-6-1986 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellant velu caused death of his concubine mennakashi at her house by cutting on her left hand, shoulder and head by means of an aruval m.o. 10. 2. to substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined p.ws. 1 to 13, filed exhibits p. 1 to p. 20 and marked m.os. 1 to 12. 3. the prosecution case needs narration. the deceased is the sister's daughter of p.w. 1 and p.w. 1's brother ramaswamy was married to the deceased. seven years back the said ramasamy died, through ramasamy the deceased had got three children. one of them is p.w. 2. gurusamy aged about 12 years. after the death of the said ramasamy the deceased used to go for cooly work in the rice mill at sankarankovil. in the same mill the appellant velu also was working. then gradually illicit intimacy developed between the deceased meenakshi and the appellant velu. for the past three years they were living as husband and wife. p.w. 1 and the deceased belong to carpenter caste and the appellant belongs to harijan caste. so p.w. 1 being a relation of the deceased, advised the deceased not to have any more connection with the appellant. however the appellant did not pay heed to her advice. 4. in the course of time the deceased meenakshi used to have intimacy with some other men also. one rajathi of nandavanam, on knowing that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with her husband nandanar, came to the house of the deceased and picked up quarrel with her asking her as to how she could have illicit intimacy with her husband. it is the case of the prosecution that even that rajathi's husband one day reprimanded the deceased for her connection with somebody else. even then the deceased did not stop from having affairs with so many others. 5. in fact the accused-appellant spent lot of money on the deceased by providing rice, cash, etc. he also made arrangements for repairing her house by spending his own money. on receiving the news that she had developed illicit intimacy with so many other persons, he got angry and came to her house on 7-6-1986 at about 8.15 a.m. he asked the deceased. then immediately the deceased retaliated saying, (vernacular matter ommittded) then the applicant who was engaged and aggrived over this statement exclaimed that (vernacular matter omitted) and so saying the appellant went away. this was at 8.15 a.m. on 7-6-1986. 6. p.w. 1 pappimmal was working in noon meal nutrition centre. after finishing her work, she came back home at about 7.30 p.m. her house is situate on the northern side, next to the house of the deceased. p.w. 2 gurusamy, one of the sons of the deceased was also inside the house of the deceased. at that time the deceased was grinding masala in the grinding stones. she asked p.w. 2 gurusamy to search for some mustard for preparation of food. so p.w. 2 was searching mustard in the cup-board in the house. 7. p.w. 4 iyappan, son of p.w. 1 is also working. he went for his work and came back home in the evening. during that time, at about 7.30 p.m. the appellant suddenly appeared there with aruval and entered inside the house of the deceased. then standing from the back side of the deceased the appellant gave a cut on the left hand of the deceased. the left hand got severed and fell down. on seeing this horrible sight, p.w. 2 gurusamy shouted (vernacular matter omitted). the appellant turned towards him and showed the aruval and said (vernacular matter omitted). so immediately p.w. 2 came out. so all the three viz., p.w. 2. p.w. 1 and p.w. 4 were standing at the entrance of the house and watching the incident. then the appellant with the aruval gave indiscriminate cuts on the shoulder, neck and hand of the deceased. on receipt of the injuries the deceased fell down on the grinding stone and died at the spot. 8. immediately thereafter p.w. 1 pappammal went to sankarankovil police station and gave a complaint to p.w. 7 sub-inspector, which was reduced into writing, and p.w. 7 obtained her signature, and registered a case against the accused for an offence under section 302, i.p.c., ex.p. 1 is the complaint and p. 8 is the first information report. then he sent these documents to the judicial magistrate, sanarankoil through p.w. 8 at 10.00 p.m. p.w. 8 rajaboopathi the police constable, took those documents and went to kovilpatti magistrate who was in charge of the sankarankovil magistrate and handed over the same at 11.45 p.m. 9. p.w. 13 inspector of police, at about 10.00 p.m. on receipt of this message through wireless from p.w. 7 came to the police station at 10.15 p.m. and received the copy of the printed f.i.r. ex.p. 8 and took up investigation at 10.30 p.m. he went to the spot and prepared observation mahazar ex.p. 10 and ex.p. 19 sketch in the presence of p.w. 9 and another. then he arranged the photographer p.w. 10 to take photograph. p.w. 10 took photographs exs.p. 12 to 14. ex.p. 15 series are the negatives. on 8-6-1986 at about 12.05 a.m. p.w. 13 inspector of police recovered blood-stained earth m.o. 1 sample earth m.o. 2 cement slab m.o. 3, blood stained slab m.o. 4 under. ex.p. 11 mahazar attested by p.w. 3 and another. between about 1.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared ex.p. 20 inquest report and examined p.ws. 1 to 4. then he sent requisition ex.p. 2 through p.w. 11 police constable requesting the doctor p.w. 5 to conduct postmortem. p.w. 11 at about 9.30 a.m. on 8-6-1996 went to the hospital and handed over the requisition along with the dead body to the doctor. 10. p.w. 5 doctor commenced post mortem at about 11.15 a.m. and found the following injuries :- '(1) a cut injury upper 1/3 of left fore-arm, circumferential and distal fore arm is fully separated from proximal fore-arm. circumferential cut is oblique. both bones, muscles, skin are fully cut obliquely (truamatic amputation at the level of upper 1/3rd forearm'). (2) a cut injury left upper arm extending from upper 1/3rd to elbow on outer aspect, y' x 1 1/2 x 1' vertical in direction. on dissection underlying muscles is cut along wound direction. (3) at oblique cut injury extending from middle of fore head to scalp behind left ear, involving frontal, temporal areas of scalp, and left ear (pinna) is separated from bony canal 6' x 3' x depth leads to cranial cavity on direction. fracture left frontal bone involving upper margin of orbit. brain matter is seen through wound. (4) a cut injury right under part of back of chest horizontal in direction 5' x 2' x 1'. on dissection : underlying scapula is also cut corresponding to external injury. (5) a cut injury, right shoulder region, enteroposterior in direction from middle of clauvicle to upper part of back 2' x 72 x 72'. internal examination : heart : chambers empty and pale. stomach empty. other visera like lungs, liver spleen, kidney were pale. head : fracture left frontal bone corresponding to injury no. 3. membranes are cut corresponding to injury no. (3). brain matter exposed. death, would appear to have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. he issued the post mortem certificate ex.p. 3. he gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury no. 3 found on the forehead of the deceased. 11. then p.w. 11 police constable removed m.o. 5 bloodstained saree. m.o. 6 bloodstained skirt. m.o. 7 blood-stained jacket. 14.0.8 series brass ear-rings. m.o. 9 brass chain from the dead body and handed over the same to the police station. he also handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. 12. on 10-6-1986 at about 2.30 p.m. on receipt of information, p.w. 13 inspector went to a temple kalappakulam and arrested the accused who was hiding near a mandapam, in the presence of p.w. 12. then the accused volunteered himself to give a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is ex.p. 16. pursuance of the said confession, the accused p.w. 13 and other witnesses to a place near karuvai fence on the west of veterinary hospital, sarkarankovil and removed m.o. 10 aruval which was concealed in the fence and produced the same to the police office at about 4.30 p.m. this was recovered under ex.p. 17 mahazar in the presence of p.w. 12 and another. then at 6 p.m. the appellant took p.w. 13 and others to andalkulam and took m.o. 11 bloodstained dhoti, and m.o. 12 bloodstained shirt kept concealed in the roof at the backward of one velu, uncle of the appellant. this was also recovered under mahazar ex.p. 18 attested by p.w. 12. then the accused was sent for remand on 11-6-1986. 13. on 15-6-1086 p.w. 13 sent all the m.os. along with ex. p. 4 requisition requesting the court to send the m.o. for chemical examination. p.w. 6 the court head clerk, on receipt of requisition ex.p. 4 along with the material objects, on 16-6-1986, sent all those m.os. along with ex.p. 5 requisition by the magistrate on 17-6-1986 for chemical examination. then he received ex.p. 6 chemical analyst's report and ex.p. 7 serologist's report. p.w. 13 after examining of the witnesses and finishing the investigation, filed charge sheet on 18-6-1986 before the concerned court. 14. on committal the trial court framed the charge as referred to above and conducted trial. after the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under section 313, cr.p.c. to explain about the incriminating circumstances in the evidence brought on record. the appellant chose to deny the complicity in the crime. he further added that he worked in the rice mill at sankarankovil for about five months, that for the last 15 days he did not work there and he had been to his native place, that he had no connection whatsoever with the deceased meenakshi, that he was sleeping on statutory night in his house and next day early morning at 4.00 a.m. sankarankoil police came and took him to the police station where he was tortured and detained, and that he was not involved in any such incident. 15. on termination of trial the trial court found the appellant guilty and dealt with him as referred earlier. aggrieved over this judgment, the appellant has resorted to file this appeal in this court. 16. miss. sundara kanchani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the entire evidence and stenuously contended that the prosecution has not proved this case beyond doubt as there are various infirmities in the ocular version given by the eye-witness, and that there is no corroboration in the other evidence addued by the prosecution. she would further contend that p.w. 1 and p.w. 4 admittedly were standing outside the house and that so they would not have seen the occurrence; that p.w. 2 used to sleep at about 7.00 p.m. itself and that the occurrence took place after 7.30 p.m. and so he would not have seen the occurrence; that there is variation in the evidence of p.w. 1 with regard to her place of employment, in that she says in one place that she was working in nutritious meal scheme centre and at another place she would say that she was returning after her work in the match factory. in short, the contention urged by the learned counsel would be that the prosecution case bristles with so many infirmities and that the benefit of doubt appellant deserves to be acquitted. 17. percontra, mr. venkatasubramaniam, learned counsel representing the state, contended that there are three eye-witnesses whose evidence was cogent and consistent, and the evidence of p.w. 1 his been amply corroborated by the ocular version of other witnesses and there are also medical evidence and recovery evidence, and the group of bloodstains found on the cloth of the deceased would also tally with the group of the bloodstains found on the shirt of the accused and the weapon recovered on the basis of his confession. he would also submit that during the time of occurrence as observed in the observation mahazar the door was open, and so p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 could have seen the occurrence from standing outside. he also stated that p.w. 2 the star witness in the case, who is none else than the son of the deceased, accompanied p.w. 1 along with p.w. 1(2)(sic) to give the complaint and so the evidence of p.w. 2 along with the other evidence would go to show that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. he also further submitted that the manner in which the accused inflicted cuts on the vital parts repeatedly would reveal that the appellant caused for death with its intention to kill her and as such the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are to be confirmed. 18. in the light of the above facts and materials, placed by the prosecution before the court, we have to assess the inherent merits of the contentions urged by the counsel appearing on either side. 19. we have carefully scrutinised the divergent contentions urged by the counsel in this case. there are three eye-witnesses. apart from the ocular version, we have got the medical testimony and the testimony relating to the recovery of weapon and the recovery of the blood-stained clothes from the accused. 20. at the outset we must say that the case of the defence is one of total denial, and in fact he stated that he had no connection whatsoever with the deceased meenakshi, when he admitted in his 313 statement that he had been working for five months in the rice mill. p.w. 1 pappammal is the close relation of the deceased. the deceased is the daughter of the elder sister of p.w. 1. p.w. 1's brother ramasamy was married to the deceased meenakshi. the house of p.w. 1 is situated at the northern side of the house of the deceased. p.w. 4 ayyappan is the son of p.w. 1 who is also residing with p.w. 1 in that house. p.w. 2 gurusamy is the second son of the deceased. through ramasamy the deceased had three children. during the time of occurrence the only so available in the house of the deceased was p.w. 2. p.w. 3 seetharaman is one other witness whose house also is situated near the house of p.w. 1. as such all the witnesses had an occasion to see the occurrence that took place in the house of the deceased on the fateful day. 21. one important special feature in this case is that p.w. 1 alone speaks about the illicit intimacy developed between the accused and the deceased. in fact she as a close relative of the deceased, reprimanded her not to have any illegal connection with the appellant that too he being a harijan. despite this advice the deceased continued to have affair with the accused. so the reading of the uninterested but impartial too. p.w. 1 and p.w. 2 both would relate to both the occurrence that took place in the morning at 7.30 a.m. and in the evening at 7.30 p.m. 22. on 7-6-1986 at 8.15 a.m. the appellant came and bombarded the deceased saying that she had connection with some other person, that for her sake he had spent quite lot of money and despite that she had no loyality. then the deceased retorded saying (vernacular manner omitted). having got enraged over this, the appellant explained, 'you will see what happens in the evening, i will come and cut you into pieces and there is going to be a murder here', and so saying he threatened and went away. this aspect of the evidence has been clearly spelt out in the evidence of p.w. 1. 23. moreover, prior to this incident that took place at 7.30 a.m. on 7-6-1986, one rajathi had came to the house of the deceased, and quarrelled with the deceased stating that she had illicit intimacy with rajathi's husband. this also was noticed by p.w. 1. apart from this, the husband of rajathi who had intimacy with her also shouted at the deceased meenakshi stating that she had illicit intimacy with some other men also and warned her not to have any more connection with any other man. despite this threatening and advice by rajathi, rajathi's husband and p.w. 1, the deceased meenakshi continued to indulge in her illegal activities by having sexual connections with so many persons. 24. so, on hearing these informations, the appellant on 7-6-1986 at about 7.30 a.m. came there and shouted at the deceased. in fact the son of the deceased - p.w. 2 would say that in the morning the accused came and reprimanded the deceased and asked her to give back her money which was spent by him for her, and the deceased in turn said that she would not give any money and she would behave as she liked and that he was not the husband who tied 'thali' around her neck and so he had no business to question her. so as regards the first incident there is a clear evidence as projected by p.w. 1 and p.w. 2. moreover there is no cross examination on this aspect. 25. the declaration as referred to by p.w. 1 made by the deceased to the accused stating that if you come anywhere near my house, i will beat you with chappal and broomstick, and i would go with any man whom i like, and you cannot question me as you are not my husband' has triggered the anger in the mind of the accused. having got angered and aggrieved over this unpalatable words of the deceased, the accused openly told her that he would come in the evening and finish her. this shows that he had almost decided in the morning itself to once for all finish her in the evening. this aspect is mentioned in ex.p. 1 also. 26. as regards the main occurrence, we have got the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 as referred to earlier. it was at about 7.30 p.m. the house of the deceased was kept open. the deceased meenakshi was grinding masala on the grinding stone. p.w. 1 after finishing her work was coming back to her house. p.w. 2 the son of the deceased was asked by the deceased to take mustard and give it to her. so p.w. 2 was searching for mustard bottle in the house itself. p.w. 4 ayyappan, son of p.w. 1 also came at that time after finishing his job. 27. at that point of time the accused suddenly appeared along with m.o. 10 aruval, entered inside the house of the deceased, he stood behind the deceased who was sitting and grinding, and inflicted a forceful cut on the left hand. the left hand got severed and fell down near the grinding stone. seeing the frightful sight, p.w. 2 gurusamy who was standing inside the house, shouted. (vernacular matter omitted) but the appellant showed the aruval and threatened him that he would also be cut. so p.w. 2 having got afraid came out of the house and then he was seeing the occurrence by standing outside. then the appellant cut indiscriminately on the head, neck and the shoulder of the deceased. the deceased fell down on the grinding stone itself and died on the spot. the evidence of the eye witnesses p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 would show that there was an electric light burning in the house during the time of occurrence. this is also mentioned in the observation mahazar ex.p. 10 and first information report ex.p. 8. as regards the aspect of the occurrence the evidence adduced by p.w. 1, p.w. 2 and p.w. 4 is quite consistent and the same inspires confidence in this court. 28. immediately thereafter p.w. 1 asked p.w. 4 son of p.w. 1 to be in the house of the deceased and then she took p.w. 2 and p.w. 3 to the police station and gave a complaint which was registered for an offence of 302, i.p.c. by p.w. 7. so the entire prosecution case is fully in tune with the contents of the f.i.r. given by p.w. 1. immediately after the occurrence i.e. about 8.05 p.m. this f.i.r. which was handed over to p.w. 8 police constable at 10.00 p.m. was received by the magistrate at 11.45 p.m. itself as referred in the evidence of the court head clerk p.w. 6. as such the contents in the f.i.r. as given by p.w. 1 is fully in consonance with the ocular version give before the court by p.ws. 1, 2 and 4. 29. of course, p.w. 3 seetharaman who is a neighbour has not supported the prosecution case as regards the main occurrence though he was cited as an eye-witness. he adopted before the court that he did not see the occurrence. that is the reason why he was treated hostile. curiously he deposed before the court that he was telling lie before the court only out of fear of the accused. but in the subsequent cross-examination he would assert that he did not see the occurrence. as such the evidence of p.w. 3 is not useful to the prosecution as he did not depose anything about the occurrence. but one aspect is very important viz., the attestation by p.w. 3 in the first information report. p.w. 1 would say that she took p.w. 3 also to the police station to give the complaint. p.w. 7 also would confirm this. perusal of ex.p. 1 would also reveal that this was attested by p.w. 3 seetharaman. 30. though p.w. 3 is a hostile witness, his evidence is useful to corroborate the evidence of p.w. 1 who gave the f.i.r. since he admitted that, he went along with p.w. 1 and after recording the statement by p.w. 7 he attested ex.p. 7. besides this, he also would support the prosecution case to a certain extent, with regard to the first occurrence that took place at 7.30 a.m. on 7-6-1986. though there is some variation with reference to the evidence about the reason of the quarrel between the deceased and the accused when compared with the evidence of p.w. 1, p.w. 3 would admit that in the quarrel the deceased said (vernacular manner omitted). and then in retaliation the accused said, (vernacular manner omitted). the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 who speak about the first occurrence which was the cause for the main occurrence that took place at 7.30 p.m. on the same day. 31. it is relevant to note that there was no cross-examination with regard to this aspect to these witness. nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of these witnesses. admittedly there is no animosity with this witnesses and there is no reason as to why p.w. 2 the son of the deceased aged about 12 years should implicate the accused in a murder case in which his own mother was done to death. as such the ocular version given by all these witnesses would make it clear that the occurrence is proved beyond doubt. 32. the medical evidence adduced by p.w. 5 plays an important role in this case. according to the doctor the severed left hand also was brought along with the dead body. he found out injuries on the fore-arm upper arm, fore-head, back of the chest and shoulder regions. it is also clear, on perusal of the post mortem certificate that the stomach of the deceased was empty. it is also mentioned that the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. p.w. 5 has specifically stated in his examination that the occurrence would have taken place on 7-6-1986 at 7.30 p.m. so the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 to the effect that she was attacked when she was grinding masala on the grinding stone i.e. before preparation of food is well corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, besides the injuries found on the vital parts of the body as referred in the evidence of the ocular witnesses. 33. so, the totality of the testimony of the eye-witnesses coupled with medical evidence would lead to an unassailable conclusion that the appellant, and the appellant alone, has committed this brutal murder by inflicting injuries on the deceased. 34. the counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 4 cannot be believed in as such as they themselves admit that they were standing outside the house of the deceased and so they could not have seen the occurrence. as correctly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the state, the evidence of p.w. 1 and the observation mahazar would make it clear that the door was kept open and so p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 definitely could have seen the occurrence which took place inside the house. it is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the state that besides the evidence relating to the occurrence corroborated by the medical evidence, there is one another important piece of evidence which is the recovery of the weapon, and the blood group found on the weapon tallies with the blood of the deceased. 35. the accused was arrested on 10-6-1986, and on his confession statement, m.o. 10 aruval was recovered under ex.p. 17. the aruval was blood-stained. on the same day at 6.00 p.m. m.o. 11 and m.o. 12 clothes of the accused were recovered from the house of his relative on his confession. as per the serologist's report ex.p. 7 the bill-book i.e. aruval m.o. 10, shirt m.o. 12, worn by the accused at the time of occurrence, the saree m.o. 5, skirt m.o. 6 and blouse m.o. 7 were found to contain the same blood group i.e. 'ab'. so this is also one of the important piece of evidence to corroborate the ocular version given by p.ws. 1, 2 and 4. 36. one other aspect which is to be referred at this stage is that, we find that there is a prompt investigation in this case by p.w. 7 and p.w. 13. the f.i.r. was given by p.w. 1 to p.w. 7 at 8.05 p.m. on 7-6-1986, p.w. 8 constable receives the f.i.r. and the complaint copy at 10.00 p.m., and he went to kovilpatti and handed over the same to the magistrate who was in charge of sankarankovil magistrate, at about 11.45 p.m. in the meantime p.w. 13 inspector of police came to the station at 10.15 p.m. itself and after receiving the f.i.r. copy proceeded to the spot at 10.30 p.m. even during night he prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovered the bloodstained articles. in the early morning he conducted the inquest in which all the eye-witnesses were examined and the inquest report also was received by the magistrate as referred to by p.w. 6 headclerk on the same day i.e. 8-6-1986. so there was no delay at any point of time from the time of registration of the case and till the time at which the inquest report was sent to the court. so all the details of the prosecution have been given in the f.i.r. and the inquest report which were received by the court on 7-6-1986 and 8-6-1986 respectively. 37. the foregoing analysis and the careful reading of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and the recovery evidence would make it clear that the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt, and the contradiction in the evidence of p.w. 1 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the place of her employment is only a minor one which can hardly make any dent in the case of the prosecution. 38. as referred by the counsel appearing for the state, the manner in which the deceased was indisciminately cut clearly shows the mens-rea or the intent of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there enough materials to conclude that the appellant, and the appellant alone, had perpetrated this crime due to which the deceased died at the spot. therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court, on the reasonings which were found to be valid, are confirmed, and the appeal which has no merits is to be dismissed. accordingly it is dismissed. 39. appeal dismissed.