MuthusamyS/o Chakkanna Vadaman v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.01.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCriminal Appeal No.274 of 2007MuthusamyS/o Chakkanna Vadaman ..Appellant-vs-The State rep.by The Inspector of PoliceValavanthi Nadu Police StationNamakkal District...RespondentMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal under Section374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgmentdated 31.3.2003 made in S.C.No.54 of 2003 on the file of thelearned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal.For Appellant::Mr.C. RagurajanFor Respondent::Mr.P.KumaresanAddl. Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of thelearned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkalconvicting the accused under Section 302 IPC to undergo lifeimprisonment made in S.C.No.54 of 2003, dated 31.3.2003.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2003 atabout 3.00 p.m., when P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Chinnasamywere sitting in front of P.W.3’s house and were chatting afterattending the betrothal function of P.W.3’s son, the accusedcame and questioned P.W.3 as to why he did not invite him tothe said function. When the deceased interfered, the accusedtold him that due to the deceased’s intervention very often,there happens to be a fight between his relatives and him and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that he told the deceased not to interfere in his familyaffairs and there arose a wordy altercation between them.Immediately, he went to his house and came back with a“Koduvaal” and cut the deceased on the left side of his neck.After receiving the cut injury on his neck, the deceasedstarted running. The accused chased him and cut the deceasedon the left bottom of the shoulder, left armpit and at theback side of the right shoulder. After attacking the deceased,the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thisoccurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3.[b]The injured was taken to Namakkal GovernmentHospital by the witnesses, where he was given the first aid.P.W.5, the doctor attached to the said hospital gave thetreatment to the injured and gave Ex.P.3-Accident Register.Thereafter, he was taken to Salem Government Hospital forfurther treatment at about 9.30 p.m., wherein he was giventreatment by P.W.11-Dr.Manimegalai, who gave Ex.P.12-AccidentRegister. But, despite treatment, the injured died in thehospital.[c]P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police of VaazhavanthiPolice Station, at the relevant point of time, on 01.06.2002at about 8.30 p.m. received a wireless message about theincident. But, due to the non-availability of transportfacility he was not able to go to the scene of occurrence. On02.06.2002, at about 2.20 a.m., he again received a wirelessmessage from Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government MedicalCollege Hospital Out Post Police Station that the injuredChinnasamy had died. At about 7.00 a.m., on 02.06.2002, onreaching the Out Post Police Station, he received the DeathIntimation, Ex.P.2 and went to the Mortuary, wherein P.W.1 hadgiven the complaint Ex.P.1. The Investigating Officer sentinformation to the Puduchathiram Inspector who was in-chargeof the Senthamangalam Police Station. Based on the complaintgiven by P.W.1, he prepared the First Information Report,Ex.13 in Crime No.129.2002 under section 302 IPC and sent thePrinted FIR and Ex.P.1 to the court concerned through P.w.8.The copies of the FIR were also forwarded to the higherofficials.[d]P.W.13, who was the Inspector of PuduchathiramPolice Station, at the relevant point of time, took up thefurther investigation upon receiving the FIR copy on02.06.2002 at 11.00 a.m. He went to the hospital and conductedinquest on the dead body of the deceased between 12.00 p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 3.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdarsthrough Ex.P.16-the Inquest Report. He also enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements. [e]After inquest, the dead body was sent forPostmortem along with a requisition, Ex.P.12. P.W.12,Dr.R.Vallinayagam, attached to the Government MohanKumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, upon receiving requisition on02.06.2002 at about 4.15 p.m., conducted autopsy on the deadbody at 4.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:-"1.An oblique sutured cut injurypresent over upper aspect of left side of neck9x2cmxbone deep cutting blood vessels, nervesand muscles below it cut fracture of C3vertebrate present on left side.2.An oblique sutured cut injurypresent on right scapular region of back9x2cmxbone deep cut fracture of scapulapresent beneath.3.An oblique sutured cut injurypresent on left scapular region of back6x1cmxbone deep cut fracture of scapulapresent.4.An oblique sutured cut injurypresent on left axillary region 8x1x1cm.5.A transverse sutured injury presenton left lumbar region 5x1x1cm.6.A superficial cut injury presentover in the inter-scapular region of back 6cm[anti mortem injuries]”.Ex.P.17 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by P.W.12 whereinhe had opined that the deceased appeared to have died out ofshock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.[f]In continuation of his investigation, theInvestigating Officer went to the scene of occurrence andprepared Ex.P.8-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17-roughsketch in the presence of witnesses. At about 8.00 p.m., onthe same day, he recovered M.O.3-blood stained earth andM.O.4-sample earth under the cover of Ex.P.9-Mahazar. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.06.2002 at 3.00 p.m., the investigating officer arrestedthe accused in the presence of witnesses. The accused cameforward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, theadmissible part of which is marked as Ex.P.10, pursuant towhich M.O.1-Koduvaal has been recovered in the presence ofwitnesses under Ex.P.11-Mahazar. The material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead bodyand the material object recovered pursuant to the confessionof the accused were all subjected to chemical analysis whichresulted in two reports, viz., Exs.P.6 and 7-Chemical AnalystReport and Serologist Report respectively. The InvestigatingOfficer also enquired the doctors concerned and recorded theirstatements also. On completion of the investigation, he laidthe charge sheet against the accused.3.When the accused was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstancesappearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, hedenied the complicity of the offence and pleaded ignorance.4.On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses wereexamined, 17 exhibits were marked and 4 material objects wereproduced. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced bythe defence side. The Trial Judge, on hearing the argumentsadvanced on either side, found the accused guilty undersection 302 IPC and awarded the sentence as stated supra.Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant/accused haspreferred this appeal.5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused wouldsubmit that the accused is a distant relative to the deceasedand the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as put forth byP.Ws.1 to 3 who are stated to be the eye witnesses and thedispute is only on a wordy quarrel between the accused andhis brothers and the deceased had interfered and in thatcourse only he has been attacked and there is no intention onthe part of the accused to cause the death of the deceasedperson. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed againstthe accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Namakkal is notsustainable, and at best, the conviction could be made againstthe accused only under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. He would alsodraw the attention of the Court that the injuries caused tothe deceased person are on a spur of the moment and there isno pre-meditated murder of the deceased.6. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the respondent. His argument is that the eyewitnesses, who had deposed in respect of the incident isbrother of the deceased namely, P.W.1 and brothers of theaccused namely, P.Ws2 and 3 and they have categorically statedthe incident against the accused and their evidence cannot beassailed in any way and their evidence would show theintention of the accused to cause the death of the deceasedand therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counselfor the appellant cannot be sustained. He would also drew theattention of this Court to the injuries sustained by thedeceased which are corroborated by the medical evidence ofP.W.5 and P.W.12 and as per their evidence, the deceasedperson had sustained six injuries and those six injuries wereinflicted upon the vital parts of the deceased person and thecause of death was due to the said injuries and the profusedbleeding and shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries.Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel forthe appellant, that there was no intention to cause deathcannot be sustained.7. We have given our anxious thought to the argumentsadvanced on either side. The occurrence is said to have takenplace on 1.6.2002 at about 4 p.m., in front of the house ofthe accused and in the said incident, the accused and one ofthe brothers of the accused had a wordy quarrel with theaccused in respect of not inviting him for the betrothalceremony and the said deceased Chinnasamy had intervened andwhile pacifying the parties over the dispute, the accused hadsuddenly enraged upon the action of the deceased and hadquarrelled with Chinnasamy that he should not interfere in thedispute which is between him and his brothers and immediatelyhe went inside and took Koduval with him and had immediatelyattacked on his left neck and on getting the cut injury on hisleft neck, the injured Chinnasamy ran away and further theaccused had chased him and again inflicted a cut injury on hisleft shoulder and thereafter on his thoracic and on his leftabdomen and also a cut injury on the right shoulder. Afterreceiving the cut injuries at the hands of the accused, thedeceased Chinnasamy fell down on the thar road and when thebrothers of the deceased had chased the accused, he had takenaway the weapon and fled away from the scene of occurrence.The injured Chinnasamy was admitted in the Namakkal GovernmentHospital and thereafter to Salem Government Hospital and therehe died at 12 o' clock in the night. The said incident wasspoken by P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 andP.W.3 are the brothers of the accused. They have also spoken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about the incident and their presence were also proved by theevidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 wouldcorroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and there is no point shownto the Court to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Nothinghas been elicited in their cross examination also to discardthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Apart from that, the prosecutionhas examined the Doctor, who attended the injured Chinnasamyat the first time in Namakkal Government Hospital as P.W.5.Her evidence would also go to show that the injured Chinnasamywas inflicted with six injuries, which would corroborate withthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Thereafter, the injuredChinnasamy was taken to Salem Government Hospital. There, hewas examined by P.W.11 Doctor, who has examined the injuredChinnasamy and her evidence would also go to show that sixinjuries sustained by him. After the death of Chinnasamy, hisbody was subjected to autopsy and it was done by P.W.12. Thedescription of injuries in the evidence of P.Ws.5, 11 and 12and the Post-mortem Certificate would go to show that theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are very well corroborated by themedical evidence. Ex.P3 issued by P.W.5 Doctor, medialstatement came into existence at 6.30 p.m., immediately withina period of two hours of the occurrence shows that the injuredwas assaulted by the known person at 4.00 p.m., on 1.6.2002,which corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.8. Apart from that the accused was arrested on3.6.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., and on his arrest, he has given aconfession statement in the presence of witnesses P.W.7 andone Kuppusamy and in the said confession, he had disclosedthat he is ready to produce the Koduval, which he has secretednear Naksuman Odai, which he has used for committing theoffence and the said confession statement was marked as Ex.P10and in pursuance of the confession statement he has led theInvestigation Officer and the witnesses to the said placewhere they discovered the koduval from the said concealedplace and the same was seized in the presence of witnessesnamely, P.W.7 and one Kuppusamy through the Seizure MahazarEx.P11. The said Koduval was identified by the witnessesP.Ws.1 to 3, that it was used by the accused for causinginjuries over the body of the deceased Chinnasamy. On hisarrest, which led to the seizure of M.O.1 would also confirmthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore, all the evidencesadduced on the side of the prosecution would clearly prove theoffence committed by the accused against the deceasedChinnasamy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Let us now consider the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the appellant that the offence committedby the accused would only amounting to culpable homicide andnot amounting to murder. The argument mainly contended by thelearned counsel for the appellant was that the incident hadhappened only upon a sudden provocation when the deceased hadinterfered in the quarrel between the accused and his brothersand therefore, it would be only an offence, which is notamounting to murder, since the accused had no intention tocause the death of the deceased. On a careful perusal of theevidence, we could see that the dispute in between theaccused and brothers was interfered and was pacified by thedeceased Chinnasamy on the fateful day. The accusedimmediately scolded the deceased that the dispute in betweenthe accused and his brothers was only due to the deceased andtherefore, he did not stop with the hitting, but, went to hishouse, picked up the Koduval M.O.1 and thereafter, cut thedeceased all over his body. When the deceased ran away forlife, he chased and inflicted cuttings on various parts of thebody of the deceased, which would go to show the intention onthe part of the accused to commit the murder. The nature ofinjuries sustained by the deceased and the weapon used in theoccurrence would lead to the only conclusion that the deceasedhad committed the offence of murder only with intention tokill the deceased. Hence, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant that it is not a case of murder,wherein the punishment under Section 302 IPC and at the mostit is only the case of culpable homicide attracting theprovisions under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC cannot be accepted.Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.10. In view of all our above discussions, we find noinfirmity in the judgment of the learned Additional DistrictSessions Judge, Namakkal and the judgment made in S.C.No.54 of2003, dated 31.3.2003 is confirmed. Accordingly, the criminalappeal is dismissed. kbSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal.2. --- do – thro' The Principal Sessions Judge Namakkal.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Valavanthi Nadu Police Station, Namakkal District.4. The District Collector, Namakkal.5. The Director General of Police, Chennai6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.•One cc to Mr. C. Regurajan, Advocate SR 1760CU (co)sg 31/01/08Crl.A.No.274 of 200708.01.2008