Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 144 (MAD)

Ramalingam v. The State of T. N.

2003-01-31

A.K.RAJAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2003
Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Ramalingam, the appellant, was convicted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The deceased is an Ex-serviceman. P.W.1 Muthammal is the wife of the deceased. (b) There is a dispute between Mariappan, the father of the accused Ramalingam and the deceased, since Mariappan did not pay back the loan received from the deceased. (c) A civil case was filed. Ultimately, the civil case was decreed in favour of the deceased. The landed property which belonged to the said Mariappan was auctioned, and in the auction, the deceased was the successful bidder, who purchased the property. Though the possession of the property was handed over to the deceased through the bailiff, the accused did not allow the deceased to enter into the land. In that context, there existed enmity between the deceased and the accused. (d) The occurrence took place on 15.7.1993. P.W.1 Muthammal and her husband, the deceased Mariappan, left their village Vonniampatti and went to Thippampatti to pay land tax to the Village Munsif. When they reached the office, the Jamapanthi was already over. Therefore, the Village Munsif asked the deceased and his wife to come and pay the tax in the Tamil month of “THAI”. Therefore, they were returning to their house. They were waiting in the bus stand for the bus. At about 11.15 a.m., the Sangeetha Transport bus came to the bus stand. Both the deceased and P.W.1 attempted to get into the bus through the front door. They were asked to come through the rear door. When the deceased got into the bus, the accused Ramalingam, who was found there, came near the deceased with a Koduval, pulled the deceased Mariappan back and gave cuts on the head, thigh and other parts of the body. The deceased fell down. He died on the spot. (e) Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Kambainallur Police Station and gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.22 at about 12.00 noon. P.W.22 registered a case under Section 302, I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the said complaint. Ex.P14 is the First Information Report. (f) On receipt of the message, P.W.23, Inspector of Police, came to the spot at 2.00 p.m. He prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P16 and rough sketch Ex.P15 and arranged to take photographs. P.W.22 registered a case under Section 302, I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the said complaint. Ex.P14 is the First Information Report. (f) On receipt of the message, P.W.23, Inspector of Police, came to the spot at 2.00 p.m. He prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P16 and rough sketch Ex.P15 and arranged to take photographs. He also recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 3.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and examined all the eye witnesses, who were having their shops near the place of occurrence. The Inquest report is Ex.P17. Then, he gave requisition Ex.P3 and sent the body for post-mortem. (g) P.W.15 Doctor, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 16.7.1993, found four injuries on the body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P4, giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the head injury. (h) On 18.7.1993 at about 11.15 a.m., P.W.23, Inspector of Police, arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.18 and obtained confessional statement from the accused. The admissible portion of the said statement is Ex.P8. In pursuance of the same, M.O.8 Koduval and M.O.9 hand bag were recovered under the Mahazar Ex.P9. Then, he produced the material objects before the Court on 5.8.1993 with a requisition Ex.P10 for chemical analysis. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet on 1.10.1993 for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined, 18 exhibits were filed and 13 material objects were marked. The accused, when questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., denied his complicity in the crime. 4. The trial Court, on analysing the materials available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. This judgment is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal before this Court. 5. Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and contended that the case of the prosecution would bristle with the various infirmities and as such, the conviction imposed by the trial Court on the accused is illegal. 5. Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and contended that the case of the prosecution would bristle with the various infirmities and as such, the conviction imposed by the trial Court on the accused is illegal. He would further point out that all the eye-witnesses turned hostile, and in spite of that, the trial Court wrongly imposed conviction without any evidence whatsoever. It is further contended that the motive, as spoken to by P.W.1, has not been established by any other material placed before the Court by the prosecution. Even with regard to the evidence relating to recovery of the material objects from the accused, he would point out various contradictions. In short, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the materials available on record would not clinchingly prove that the accused alone had committed the murder of the deceased. 6. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on all these aspects. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 8. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 and the deceased came to Thippampatti to pay land tax. Since the Village Munsif told that already the Jamapanthi was over and hence they can come and pay the tax in the Tamil month of “THAI”, they were returning to the bus stand to catch the bus to go to their village. When the deceased was attempting to get into the bus, the accused Ramalingam suddenly came there with a Koduval, pulled the deceased out and gave indiscriminate cuts on head, thigh and other parts of the body. This was witnessed by P.W.1, who accompanied the deceased and also by various persons who were having shops in that area. 9. It is true that all the witnesses turned hostile. But it is well settled in law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in DHANANJAY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA V. STATE OF W.B. (1994 S.C.C. (Crl.) 358) that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be ignored totally and the Court can scrutinise his testimony and accept that portion of the same which receives corroboration from other evidence on record. The testimony of a hostile witness is not liable to be rejected without even scrutinising it, although great care and caution is required to analyse the same before accepting any part of it as is otherwise found reliable and consistent with the prosecution case. The testimony of a hostile witness is not liable to be rejected without even scrutinising it, although great care and caution is required to analyse the same before accepting any part of it as is otherwise found reliable and consistent with the prosecution case. In the light of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, if we look at the evidence of P.W.1 who has been treated hostile, her testimony is not only corroborated by the medical testimony tendered by the doctor P.W.15 through Ex.P4 post-mortem certificate, but also by the evidence of Kanakaraj P.W.14 and Sub Inspector of Police P.W.22, who speak about the giving of the complaint made by P.W.1 to the police. 10. It is true, in the initial stage of cross-examination, that P.W.1 would state that some persons from Thippampatti came to her house in the evening and told her that Ramalingam killed her husband and took her to the spot. But she had specifically stated in the chief examination itself that she was asked by the accused not to give any evidence against him in the Court. In the light of the said statement, we have to analyse the entire oral evidence adduced by P.W.1. 11. If we go through the cross-examination, it is noticed that in the later portion of the cross-examination, P.W.1 had specifically stated that the accused only gave cuts on the deceased and she has witnessed the occurrence, and on the basis of the same, she has given a complaint. Even after she was treated as hostile, she stated during the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor that that she stated to the police that she witnessed the occurrence and the accused only gave cuts on the deceased, and thereafter went to the police station and gave a complaint. In those circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 relating to the occurrence and reporting it to the police cannot be discarded merely because in some portion of the cross-examination she has stated that she was informed by some people that her husband was killed by Ramalingam and thereafter she was taken to the spot. 12. A perusal of the entire records would indicate that all the other witnesses, who were having shops in the place of occurrence, turned hostile. 12. A perusal of the entire records would indicate that all the other witnesses, who were having shops in the place of occurrence, turned hostile. In the light of the said situation, it can be inferred that P.W.1 also should have been influenced and threatened by the accused by asking her not to tell any evidence against him, as admitted by P.W.1. 13. Fortunately, in this case, apart from the ocular evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.15, we have got the evidence relating to the recovery of the weapon used for committing the offence, as spoken to by P.W.18 and P.W.23. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.18 Village Administrative Officer and P.W.23 Inspector of Police would clearly show that the accused was arrested of 18.7.1993 at 11.15 a.m. and on his confession, M.O.8 Koduval was recovered. The chemical analysis report Ex.P12 would show that the Koduval, which was recovered from the accused, was found with hair pieces, which were found to be human. 13. Under those circumstances, it has to be held that the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the occurrence has been clearly established by the prosecution and as such, the conviction imposed upon the appellant/accused is perfectly justified. With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed.