| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/904727 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Chennai High Court |
| Decided On | Aug-20-2010 |
| Case Number | CRL.A.No.295 of 2010 |
| Judge | M.CHOCKALINGAM; M.SATHYANARAYANAN, JJ. |
| Acts | Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 374(2) |
| Appellant | Ramasamy, and anr. |
| Respondent | State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Guruparapalli. |
| Appellant Advocate | Mr.V.Gopinath, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, Adv. |
CHARGE FINDING PUNISHMENT
A-1
302 IPC (2 counts) Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence
A-2
341 & 302 r/w 34 ( 2 counts) IPC
Guilty
1 month SI with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence respectively
2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) A-1 and A-2 are brothers. The first deceased (D1) Sreenivasan was an unmarried. P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. The second deceased (D2) Govindammal was the sister of A-1 and A-2. All belonged to Podarapalli Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. All of them were related to each other as agnates. While so, D1 Sreenivasan and D2 Govindammal developed illicit intimacy. When it came to the knowledge of the family members and also A-1 and A-2, all of them were refuting. Despite the same, they continued to do so. The appellants, who are the brothers of D2 Govindammal, felt ashamed by her conduct. (b) On the night hours of 22.8.2007, both D1 and D2 eloped. The news spread in the entire village. The wife of D1 came to P.W.1 and informed about the same. P.W.1 replied that they could search them in the next morning. Accordingly, on 23.8.2007 during morning hours, P.W.1 asked others to search for them, and he proceeded for watering his land. At about 9.00 A.M., he found both D1 and D2 sitting in the plantain thope nearby his land and chatting. At that time, A-1 armed with an aruval and accompanied by A-2, came there. On seeing both the deceased, A-2 held D1, and A-1 cut him with the aruval. When D1 fell down, A-1 made number of attacks. This was witnessed not only by P.W.1, but also by P.Ws.2 and
3. On being scared, D2 Govindammal was running from the place. But, A-1 held her tuft and attacked her. Not satisfied with the same, A-2 snatched the aruval from A-1's hand and attacked her. Both died instantaneously at the spot. Both the appellants/accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), P.W.4, who recorded the statement given by him, which is marked as Ex.P1. He also prepared his report, which is marked as Ex.P2. Then P.W.4 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, was on duty, and he gave the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.374 of 2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P16, was sent to the Court.
(d) P.W.13, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P13, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P21. Then, photographs of both the dead bodies and the place of occurrence were taken, and M.O.10 series are the photos and negatives. The Investigator conducted inquest on the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared inquest reports, Exs.P22 and P23 respectively. Both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem.
(e) P.W.6, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Krishnagiri, on receipt of the requisitions, has conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Sreenivasan and Govindammal and has issued postmortem certificates, Exs.P11 and P13 respectively, with his opinion that both the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to brain matter and death would have occurred 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.
(f) Pending investigation, both the accused were arrested on 24.8.2007, when they came forward to give confessional statements. The same were recorded. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P6 and that of A-2 is Ex.P8. Following the same, they produced bloodstained clothes which were all recovered under a cover of mahazar. All the material objects were sent for analysis which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P19, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P20, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and 17 material objects. On completion of 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 he flatly denied as false, and they did not adduce any evidence. 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 as per the charges and awarded the above punishment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.
4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view; that the occurrence has taken place at about 9.00 A.M. on 23.8.2007, according to the prosecution story; that P.W.1 did not go to the police station, but he has approached P.W.4, the VAO, and thereafter, on the strength of Ex.P1, statement, alleged to have been given by P.W.1 to P.W.4, and also Ex.P2, the report, given by P.W.4, a case came to be registered at about 10.30 A.M.; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3; but from the evidence of P.W.3, it would be quite clear that P.W.1 came to the spot only after the occurrence was over; that the same is candidly admitted by the Investigating Officer; that not only P.W.1 but also a few witnesses who were not examined before the trial Court, also came to the spot only later, and hence they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that what was available to the prosecution before the trial Judge was only P.Ws.2 and 3; that P.Ws.2 and 3 had no occasion to be at the spot at the time when the occurrence has taken place in the plantain thope which is situated away from the village; that P.Ws.2 and 3 who happened to be chance witnesses, could not explain how they happened to be at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place, and under the circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 became unacceptable; and that if so, barring the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the prosecution had no more evidence to offer.
5.The learned Senior Counsel would further add that the evidence of these witnesses should not be believed for the simple reason that even as per the FIR, it was A-1 who cut both and it was A-2 who held both of them; but when they came before the Court, all the three witnesses have consistently developed their evidence stating that A-2 held D1 when A-1 inflicted injury and after D1 fell down, A-2 also cut him; that equally A-2 also joined A-1 in cutting D2 also; but, there is no whisper in the FIR that A-2 had got any overt act; that under the circumstances, the evidence was only a development; that it would be quite indicative of the fact that they have come forward to give false evidence and hence their evidence should not be accepted by the Court; that as far the recovery of the material objects pursuant to the confessional statements, is concerned, they are all nothing but documents prepared for the purpose of strengthening the prosecution case, and hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
6.Added further the learned Senior Counsel in the second line of his argument that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the factual matrix of the prosecution stands proved, the analysis of evidence would clearly indicate that the prosecution had no case as against A-2 for the simple reason that even at the time of occurrence, there was not even any whisper in Ex.P1 or in the statements recorded by the Investigator, that A-2 made any attacks either on D1 or on D2, and thus it was only a development; and that further it is also candidly admitted by the Investigator.
7.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that it is not the case of the prosecution that A-2 was armed; that if really A-2 has held either D1 or D2 as put forth by the prosecution, the injuries found on the body of D1 and D2 could not have been inflicted by A-1 with an aruval; that under the circumstances, the prosecution case that A-2 was facilitating the crime by catching hold of D1 or D2 cannot be believed, and hence the prosecution had no case as far as A-2 is concerned; that insofar as A-1, the act of A-1 would not attract the penal provision of murder since both the deceased developed illicit intimacy; that they were actually related as agnates; that they were also warned by the villagers and also by A-1 and A-2, but they did not pay heed to their words; that under the circumstances, being provoked, he has acted so which is neither intentional nor premeditated, and this has got to be considered by the Court.
8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
9.It is not in controversy that D1 Sreenivasan and D2 Goviondammal were done to death in an incident that had taken place at about 9.00 A.M. on 23.8.2007. Following the inquest made by the Investigator and preparation of the inquest reports, the dead bodies were subjected to postmortem by P.W.6, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion before the trial Court as a witness and also through the contents of the postmortem certificates, Exs.P11 and P13 respectively, that they died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the brain matter. The trial Judge has rightly recorded so, and thus the prosecution has proved the said fact without leaving any doubt.
10.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants/accused, the prosecution marched 3 witnesses as eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3. According to P.W.1, he was going to his field in the morning hours at about 9.00 A.M., and at that time, he found D1 and D2 actually sitting near the plantain thope and chatting with each other, and at that time, A-1 armed with a deadly weapon namely aruval and accompanied by A-2, came to the spot and A-1 gave cuts first on D1, while he was held by A-2, and thereafter, he also gave cuts to D2, and at that time, the crime was facilitated by A-2. The evidence of P.W.1 stood the cross-examination in full. That apart, his evidence stood fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. The learned Senior Counsel took the Court to the evidence of P.W.3 where he has stated that P.W.1 came to the spot later. But, P.W.2 has categorically spoken to the fact that at the time of occurrence, P.W.1 was very well available at the spot, and thus it can be well stated that the evidence of P.W.1 stood fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2.
11.Now, at this juncture, this Court is able to see force in the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as far as A-2 is concerned. Insofar as the overt acts attributed to A-2, the case of the prosecution as found in the charge was that it was A-1 who attacked D1 first, and thereafter he attacked D2. It is also the further case of the prosecution in the charge that while A-1 inflicted cuts on D1 and D2, the crime was facilitated by A-2 by catching hold of both of them. But, at the time of evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have developed as if A-2 has also joined A-1 in cutting both D1 and D2. It would be quite evident that it was a development made at the time of giving evidence before the Court. Originally, the case of the prosecution was that A-2 was only catching hold of both D1 and D2 at the time of occurrence. Apart from that, when the postmortem certificate as regards D1, is perused, only one injury is found on the neck of D1. But the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was to the effect that number of injuries were inflicted by A-2 also which could not have been done. This Court is of the considered opinion that A-2 has got to be relieved of the charges for two reasons. Firstly, if really he was catching hold of either of the deceased, the injuries that were found on the body of either D1 or D2 could not have been caused when A-1 attacked them with the aruval. Apart from that, there is nothing to infer that A-2 knew that A-1 had intention of causing the death of either of them, and that common intention was shared by A-2. Under the circumstances, as far as A-2 is concerned, this Court is unable to agree with the case of the prosecution put forth before the trial Court, and he has got to be acquitted.
12.As far as A-1 is concerned, the ocular testimony projected through P.Ws.1 and 2 which stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence, is clinchingly pointing to his guilt that it was he who attacked both of them with the aruval at the time of occurrence and caused their death at the spot instantaneously. The contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that A-1 had no intention or premeditation to cause death cannot be accepted at all. A-1 has actually attacked both of them on the neck and head respectively, and the injuries that were caused would in the ordinary course of nature, cause death. Apart from that, it is pertinent to point out that they were all actually searching them during the relevant time, and A-1 was armed with the aruval and went there and when he found them, he attacked them, which in the opinion of this Court, would be pointing to the fact that it was an act intentionally done. Under the circumstances, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in finding A-1 guilty as per the charge of murder and awarding life imprisonment (two counts), and both the sentences awarded by the trial Judge have to run concurrently. There is nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court as regards A-1.
13.As far as A-2 is concerned, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside, and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amounts if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him. 14.In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.