Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 704 (MAD)

Palaniyandi v. The State

2003-04-22

A.R.RAMALINGAM, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2003
Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAGAM,J. Palaniyandi, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 506(ii) (4 counts) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each count under Section 506(ii) IPC by the judgment in S.C.No.130 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The facts leading to conviction, in brief, are as follows:- "(a) The deceased Ponnammal is the wife of one Arunachalam. The accused Palaniyandi is the son of Kalianna @ Kolandai, the brother of the said Arunachalam. Tmt.Angammal, the mother of Arunachalam executed a Will bequeathing her four acres of land in favour of her younger son Arunachalam and two acres of land in favour of her elder son Kolandai. Arunachalam married two wives viz., Ponnammal and Chinnammal, younger sister of Ponnammal. Arunachalam died without any issues leaving his two wives as his legal heirs. Kolandai died leaving his son Palaniandi, as his only legal heir. (b) The accused Palaniyandi after the death of Arunachalam, insisted Ponnammal and Chinnammal, his aunts, to assign their land inherited through their husband, as he is the only issue in their family. Both Ponnammal and Chinnammal did not oblige for the same. Ponnammal and Chinnammal were unable to cultivate the land, and therefore, they sold the same in favour of Karuppayee-P.W.3, their sister, about two months prior to the date of occurrence. (c) Objecting to the said sale, the accused Palaniyandi, issued a legal notice to P.W.3's family. On behalf of P.W.3, a reply notice was sent, refuting his claim. Thus, the accused Palaniyandi developed enmity against both of his widowed aunts, Ponnammal and Chinnammal. (d) The fateful occurrence took place on 25.05.1998. P.W.3-Karuppayee left the Veesanam village and went to the Government Hospital, Namakkal for taking treatment. She came back at 2.00 p.m. and on the way, she noticed that the accused Palaniyandi was cutting the trees situate in the disputed land. Immediately P.W.3 came and informed to her husband P.W.2-Kaliannan and her son, and then all the three went to the house of the deceased Ponnammal and informed about the act of the accused in cutting the trees. Immediately P.W.3 came and informed to her husband P.W.2-Kaliannan and her son, and then all the three went to the house of the deceased Ponnammal and informed about the act of the accused in cutting the trees. (e) Ponnammal, deceased, her sister Chinnammal and P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the disputed land and saw the accused cutting the trees. On noticing this, Ponnammal questioned the accused as to why he was cutting the trees. Retaliating this, the accused challenged the deceased stating that he would do whatever he likes and if only he kill her, he would be able to lead a peaceful life and so saying, he began to attack the deceased Ponnammal. The deceased warded of the attack with her left forearm, as a result of which, she sustained injuries in her left arm and thereupon, she ran towards the northern side. (f) As soon as the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and Chinnammal cried loud, the accused-Palaniyandi intimidated the witnesses and chased the deceased. After a considerable distance, the deceased was caught by the accused. Then he gave a cut with bill hook aruval on the right side of her neck, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the ground and died on the spot. (g) Thereupon, accused ran way from the scene with the weapon. The witnesses to the occurrence came near the deceased and found the deceased dead. Therefore, P.W.1 Saruvamalai went to the Police Station at Namakkal and gave a complaint, Ex.P.1. P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Ex.P.18 is the First Information Report. (h) P.W.12-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R. at 4.00 p.m. reached the scene of occurrence at 4.30 p.m., and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and rough sketch Ex.P.19. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3. The inquest report is Ex.P.20. The body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Namakkal for postmortem. In the meantime, P.W.12 recovered M.O.2, blood stained earth and M.O.8 sample earth, from the scene of occurrence. (i) P.W.8-Doctor conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased on 26.05.1998 at 10.30 a.m. She found three incised wounds on the left forearm, right side of the neck and right side of the lower jaw. In the meantime, P.W.12 recovered M.O.2, blood stained earth and M.O.8 sample earth, from the scene of occurrence. (i) P.W.8-Doctor conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased on 26.05.1998 at 10.30 a.m. She found three incised wounds on the left forearm, right side of the neck and right side of the lower jaw. She issued Ex.P.9, the postmortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to injuries sustained. (j) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, in continuation of his investigation, recovered M.O.5 blood stained two pieces of sari and M.O.6 blood stained petticoat. In the meantime, P.W.12 came to know that on 26.05.1998 the accused surrendered before the Court. (k) On 4.6.1998, P.W.12 obtained police custody of the accused and on his confession, M.O.1 bill hook, was recovered. Thereafter, he arranged for sending the material objects for chemical examination through Court. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 502(ii) I.P.C. (l) During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.20 were filed and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. (m) The defence of the accused during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of total denial. (n) The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 506(ii)(4 counts) I.P.C., and sentenced him thereunder. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the materials furnished by the investigating agency would suffer from various infirmities and he would further contend that there is no independent witness either for the previous quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased with reference to the disputed land or for the main occurrence in which the deceased was done to death. The only evidence available is that of the interested witnesses and their evidence also appear to be artificial and as such, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 4. In reply to the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting the accused are perfectly valid and as such, the finding of the trial Court need not be disturbed. 5. 4. In reply to the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting the accused are perfectly valid and as such, the finding of the trial Court need not be disturbed. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the parties and gone through the records. 6. According to the prosecution, the motive for the occurrence is that the accused had a grudge against the deceased, since she has executed a sale deed, in respect of a land, in favour of her sister P.W.3, instead of assigning the same to the accused and thereby, disturbed the accused from enjoying the land which belonged to his grandmother Angammal. There is no dispute in the fact that two months prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased and her sister Chinnammal executed a sale deed in favour of P.W.3-Karuppayee, their sister, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also not disputed that questioning the said sale, the accused sent a legal notice to P.W.3, P.W.1 and also to Chinnammal and the deceased Ponnammal. In reply to this, the deceased Ponnammal and Chinnammal also sent a lawyer's notice refuting his claim stating that the sale is valid. In view of these admitted facts, it is clear that there was a strong enmity between the deceased and the accused. 7. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would make it clear that the accused used to come to the house of the deceased and threaten her stating that one day or the other, he would hill her because he was not allowed to enjoy the property, as the same was sold to P.W.3. Thus, it is obvious that there was a strong motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. As noted above, this aspect of the evidence relating to the motive has not been challenged during cross-examination of the witnesses, nor the accused made any mention about this in the answers given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the Court. 8. Let us now come to the aspect of the evidence relating to the occurrence. As noted above, this aspect of the evidence relating to the motive has not been challenged during cross-examination of the witnesses, nor the accused made any mention about this in the answers given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the Court. 8. Let us now come to the aspect of the evidence relating to the occurrence. The occurrence took place on 25.05.1998 at 2.30 p.m. According to P.W.3, she left the village for taking treatment at the Government General Hospital, Namakkal and on her way to home, she noticed the accused cutting the trees situate in the disputed land. Immediately, she came and informed P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, her son and husband respectively, and also to the deceased Ponnammal, who executed the sale deed in her favour. 9. Thereafter, all of them went to the scene of occurrence. The deceased Ponnammal went ahead and questioned the accused as to how he could cut the trees situate in her land. The accused, who had grudge against the deceased Ponnammal, because of her executing the sale deed in favour of P.W.3, retaliated, stating that he would cut the trees as he likes and as she was objecting to his enjoyment, he would kill her and then only, he will be able to enjoy the property without any more hurdle. So saying, he began to attack with aruval, the deceased Ponnammal, who in turn warded of the attack. The cut fell on the left forearm resulting in injury. On apprehending that the accused would kill her, the deceased began to run away from the scene of occurrence saying. The accused did not stop with that and he was chasing the deceased up to a particular distance and then gave a heavy cut on the right side of her neck. On receipt of the injury, the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. This aspect of the evidence has been spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 immediately rushed to the Police Station, Namakkal, which is situated about 2 kilometres from the scene village and gave the complaint at 3.30 p.m. 10. P.W.11—Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.946/1998 and prepared the First Information Report and sent a copy of the same to the Magistrate, who received the documents at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. All these details have been mentioned in Ex.P.1. P.W.11—Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.946/1998 and prepared the First Information Report and sent a copy of the same to the Magistrate, who received the documents at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. All these details have been mentioned in Ex.P.1. In consonance with the contents in Ex.P.1, all the witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 would give an ocular account of the occurrence and the same is cogent and consistent. 11. The main thrust of attack on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that they are not independent witnesses and are closely related to the deceased and as such, their evidence cannot be relied upon, especially when P.W.3, who is the owner of the land, did not choose to object immediately, when she noticed the cutting of the tree in the land in question. 12. This contention, in our view, does not merit acceptance, for the reason that it is not the prosecution case that apart from P.Ws.1 to 3, other persons, who are the residents of the area, have witnessed the occurrence. Furthermore, P.W.3, on noticing the accused cutting the tree standing in her land at a distance of 100' from the road, wanted to inform her husband and therefore, she came to her house and informed the same to P.W.2, her husband. On receipt of the news, P.Ws.1 and 2 thought it fit to inform the same to the original owner, the deceased, who was staying in the southern side of their house. After receipt of information, the deceased Ponnammal also accompanied P.Ws.1 to 3 to the scene to question the accused. 13. It is contended that the trees were being cut for two days and therefore, the failure on the part of P.Ws.1 to 3 or the deceased in objecting the deceased on the first day itself would show that these people would not have gone there on the date of occurrence for questioning the accused. 14. This submission also, in our view, does not merit consideration, in view of the fact that there is no material to show that P.Ws.1 to 3 knew that the cutting process was started two days prior to the date of occurrence. 14. This submission also, in our view, does not merit consideration, in view of the fact that there is no material to show that P.Ws.1 to 3 knew that the cutting process was started two days prior to the date of occurrence. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.3 would show that she happened to notice that the accused was cutting the tree only on 25.05.1998 as she was coming back to the village after taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Namakkal. The Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 and rough sketch Ex.P.19 would also show that three trees were found cut and one of the trees was about to be cut and the sand was removed around that tree. 15. The mere fact that the eye-witnesses happened to be the relatives of the deceased, would not be a ground to reject their testimony in toto, especially when the accused also happened to be the relative of the witnesses. Moreover, the eye-witnesses being relatives of the deceased, would not normally allow the real accused to escape. 16. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, which is trust-worthy and reliable. Furthermore, their evidence has been corroborated by the medical testimony, P.W.8 Doctor, found three injuries, one on the left forearm, the second injury on the right side of the neck and the third injury on the right side of the jaw. According to the doctor, the neck injury is the fatal injury. 17. It is an admitted fact that the accused was taken to the police custody and M.O.1 bill hook was recovered from the accused, which contained human blood stains and the same tallied with the blood group of the deceased. It was contended that P.W.1 would state that the bill hook aruval was dropped on the scene of occurrence itself. It is purely a mistake, as the same has not been mentioned in Ex.P.1. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 would specifically state that the accused ran away from the scene with the weapon in his hand. Furthermore, there was no reference about the availability of the weapon on the scene of occurrence in the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused had dropped the weapon at the scene itself, is purely a mistake. 18. Furthermore, there was no reference about the availability of the weapon on the scene of occurrence in the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused had dropped the weapon at the scene itself, is purely a mistake. 18. So, from any angle, it may be stated that the materials placed before the Court by the prosecution would clinchingly prove that the deceased was done away with by the accused and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. are perfectly justified. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court are confirmed.