Vs. State of Tamil Nadu  Insc 820 (13 August 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain
Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2050 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The said appeal was
filed by the appellant and two others. The accused-appellants are Kittusamy, Channappan,
and Palanisamy (for the sake of convenience the accused persons are described
as A1, A2 and A3). Each of them was convicted for offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
Ayyasamy is the son-in-law of Kittusamy (Al). Chinnappan (A2) and Palanisamy
(A3) are the sons of Al.
Ayyasamy married Valliammal, daughter of Al, about 15 years back. From the
wedlock, two children were born. After sometime, Chinnakutty, second daughter
of Al was kept as concubine by the deceased. After four months, she left the
house of the deceased and eloped with somebody else.
years prior to the date of occurrence, Valliammal, daughter of Al, unable to
bear the torture at the hands of the deceased, left the house of the deceased
and joined her parents with her children.
3.11.1996 at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased Ayyasamy came to the house of the
accused, where the wife of the deceased along with her children were residing,
and asked his wife to come with him to lead the matrimonial life. She refused
to accompany him. The accused also told the deceased that they would not allow Valliammal
to join him anymore.
the deceased abused the accused in filthy language and went back to his house.
4.11.1996 at about 6.00
A.M., Al to A3 came to
the house of the deceased, where he was residing alone, with weapons. Al, A2
and A3 were armed with stick, iron rod and aruval respectively. Noticing all
the accused coming with the weapons, the deceased got afraid and began to run
from his house towards Northern side.
all the accused chased him to a considerable distance and ultimately,
surrounded and attacked the deceased with the weapons causing 17 injuries.
Three persons (PWs 1, 2 and 3) witnessed the incident.
P.W.1 went to Avanashipalayam police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint to Sub
Inspector of Police (PW-10). A case under Section 302 read with Section 34 1PC
was registered against the accused.
of Police (PW-11), on receipt of the information, visited the scene of
occurrence at about 11.30
A.M. He prepared
Observation Mahazar and rough sketch. He also conducted inquest and examined
the witnesses. He recovered blood stained earth, sample earth and other things
from the scene of occurrence. He sent Ex.P-9 requisition to the Doctor, Palladam Government Hospital to conduct autopsy.
(PW-6) conducted postmortem and issued Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P-10) giving
details of the injuries found all over the body. He was of the opinion that the
deceased would appear to have died of contusion of brain matter and shock and haemorrhage
due to injury to lungs.
On 5-11-1996, at about 1.00 PM, Inspector of Police (PW- 11) arrested Al to A-3 and obtained their
confession statements and in pursuance of the same, he recovered weapons M.O.1
(stick), M.0.2 (iron rod) and M.O.3 (aruval).
of Police (P.W.12), who was the successor to P.W.11, finished the investigation
and filed charge-sheet against all the accused under Section 302 read with Section
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. As the accused persons
pleaded innocence, they were put on trial.
12 witnesses. It was noted by the trial court that PWs 1, 2 and 3 were
eye-witnesses and their version was sufficient to hold the accused persons
guilty. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and
fine awarded were confirmed. Before the High Court, the primary stand of the
appellant was that the evidence is not credible and cogent; the evidence of PWs.
1, 2 and 3 is contrary to the medical evidence on record. The Doctor stated
that the occurrence could have taken place around 4 a.m., whereas the prosecution stated that the occurrence took
place around 6 a.m. The High Court did not accept the
stand as noted above and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand
taken before the High Court.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.
is to be noted that PW 1 was the cousin brother of the deceased while PWs. 2
and 3 were his parents. Though efforts was made to show that PWs 2 and 3 stay
at a different place, as rightly observed by the trial court and the High Court
that really is not relevant and that PWs. 3 and 4 stated as to why and how they
were at the place of occurrence. PWs. 1 to 3 have given the elaborate details
of the weapons held by the accused and the manner of assault by them. PW 6 the
doctor noted that there were 17 injuries found on the body of the accused which
could be caused by the weapons held by A1 to A3. So far as the doctors
evidence about the approximate time of the death is concerned, it is to be
noted that the doctor had nowhere stated that death took place around mid
contrary he stated as follows:
I opined that the deceased could die from 12
to 16 hours, I am saying here that the deceased could die from 12 to 16 hours.
upon the trigger mart on body, I had mentioned the time of death. I stated that
there was digested liquid in his stomach.
recovery of the weapons of assault has also been established.
High Court has rightly observed that there is a ring of truth in the evidence
of PWs. The appellant could not point out any infirmity, which would warrant
interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. In view of the
above, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.