Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1405 (MAD)

Sasikumar v. State rep. By Inspector of Police

2004-10-27

P.SATHASIVAM, R.BANUMATHI

body2004
Judgment :- R.Banumathi, J. Appellant is the Accused in S.C.No.31 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Karaikkal. By the Judgment (dated 28.06.2002) learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellant / Accused under Sec.302 I.P.C for committing the Murder of Babu and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and also imposing fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. From the materials available on record, the case of Prosecution could be stated thus:- P.W.1-Masilamani is running a “Salna Shop” in the Arrack Shop at Melavanjur, where eatables are sold. On 06.09.2000 – 07.00 a.m, the Accused-Sasikumar and Deceased-Babu went to the Liquor Shop. After consuming Liquor, the Accused and Deceased came to the “Salna Shop” of P.W.1. The Accused and the Deceased have different political affinity. Talking about politics, there was heated exchange between the Accused and the Deceased. The angered Accused attacked Babu with broken Soda Bottle on the vital part of his body – Lateral aspect of Neck and Chest and also the Nose, causing grievous injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2 – Ramamurthy, an employee of the “Salna Shop”. Injured-Babu was taken to Nagappattinam Government Hospital for treatment. P.W.4-Dr.Nagarajan has treated Babu. He has noted the injuries on the person of Babu and gave treatment. 3. On receipt of the intimation from the Hospital, P.W.12-Head Constable went to the Hospital and recorded the Statement of Babu under Ex.P.19. On the basis of Ex.P.19, a case was registered in Crime No.85 of 2000 under Sec.324 I.P.C of T.R.Pattinam Police Station under Ex.P.20-F.I.R. 4. P.W.12-Head Constable had taken up the initial Investigation. Scene of occurrence was inspected in the presence of Witnesses. Ex.P.1-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.21-Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. On 07.09.2000 – 03.45 a.m in the bus stop of T.R.Pattinam Mudaliar Street, the Accused was arrested. P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police had taken up the further Investigation. On 07.09.2000 – 06.00 p.m, the Accused was interrogated in the presence of P.W.11-Mani and one Balarajan. The Accused gave Confession Statement which led to the recovery of broken Soda Bottle (M.O.10 series) and his Blood Stained Clothes under Ex.P.18. The Accused also sustained Injuries on his Left Forearm. Hence, he was sent to Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam. P.W.7-Dr.Durairaj has examined the Accused and noted the cut injury on the Left Forearm above Wrist. Ex.P.8 is the Accident Register of the Accused. 5. The Accused also sustained Injuries on his Left Forearm. Hence, he was sent to Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam. P.W.7-Dr.Durairaj has examined the Accused and noted the cut injury on the Left Forearm above Wrist. Ex.P.8 is the Accident Register of the Accused. 5. On 08.09.2000 – 11.15 a.m, P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police visited the Hospital. Injured Babu was found to be in an unconscious stage. Hence, the case was altered into Sec.307 I.P.C. On 09.09.2000, Babu succumbed to injuries and the case was altered into Sec.302 I.P.C. The seized Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis. On completion of the Investigation, the Accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. 6. Further Investigation was taken up. Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatars and Inquest was held on the body of Deceased-Babu. Ex.P.13 is the Inquest Report. Blood stained Clothes of the Deceased were also recovered. After the Inquest, the body was sent to Autopsy. P.W.6-Dr.P.Sampathkumar has conducted the Autopsy on the body of Deceased-Babu and noted, “...A curved incised wound in the lateral aspect of Left side of Neck....A stab wound in the lateral Chest well of Left side....; Abrasion in the Nose...”. Opining that Babu died of Haemorrhage and shock due to carotid vessel injury, P.W.6 issued Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Certificate. Seized Material Objects and Blood Sample of the Accused and the Deceased were sent for Chemical Analysis. P.W.16-Superintendent of Police has further verified the file and filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused under Sec.302 I.P.C. 7. In the Trial Court, to substantiate the charge against the Accused, Eye Witnesses – P.Ws.1 and 2, Medical Witnesses and other Official Witnesses (P.Ws.3 to 16) were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.25 were marked. M.Os.1 to 10 were produced before the Court. The Accused was questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstance against him. The Accused has stated that along with him, atleast fifteen persons were taken to custody by the Police regarding the occurrence and later, a false case has been foisted against the Accused alone. When the Accused was questioned about the Sentence, the Accused prayed for leniency. 8. In consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Eye Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 as trustworthy and inspiring the confidence of the Court. When the Accused was questioned about the Sentence, the Accused prayed for leniency. 8. In consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Eye Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 as trustworthy and inspiring the confidence of the Court. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Medical Evidence and other circumstances, learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant / Accused under Sec.302 I.P.C and sentenced him as aforesaid in para (1). 9. Aggrieved over the verdict of Conviction and Sentence, the Appellant / Accused has preferred this Appeal. Assailing the verdict of conviction and the reasonings, learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has contended that the Accused had no motive to commit the Murder of Deceased-Babu. Case of Prosecution is attacked on the ground of discrepancy regarding the scene of occurrence and the variation in the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Learned counsel contended that the Accused and the Deceased belong to rival political party and in drunken mood they went to the shop, the Accused entering into heated exchange with the Deceased, had no motive and that the offence and that the act of the Accused would not fall under Sec.302 I.P.C. 10. Submitting that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is well corroborated by Medical Evidence and that the reasonings for Conviction are well balanced, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry has submitted that there is no reason warranting interference. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides, evidence and materials on record. In such careful analysis, the only point that arises for our consideration is whether the conviction of the Appellant / Accused under Sec.302 I.P.C warrants interference? 12. The scene of occurrence is Melavanjur Arrack Shop No.1. On the ill fated day – 06.09.2000, even at the early hours of 07.00 a.m, the Deceased Babu aged about 60 years, the Accused then aged only about 19 years went to the Liquor Shop. After taking Liquor, while in “Salna Shop” of P.W.1, the Accused and the Deceased picked up arguments on politics. The differences resulted in heated exchange. The angered Accused caused injuries to Babu with broken Soda Bottle on the lateral aspect of Neck and Chest. P.W.1-Masilamani-Owner of the “Salna Shop” and P.W.2-Ramamurthy – Employee under P.W.1 have clearly narrated about the occurrence. The differences resulted in heated exchange. The angered Accused caused injuries to Babu with broken Soda Bottle on the lateral aspect of Neck and Chest. P.W.1-Masilamani-Owner of the “Salna Shop” and P.W.2-Ramamurthy – Employee under P.W.1 have clearly narrated about the occurrence. They have consistently spoken about the overt act of the Accused viz., that the Accused caused injuries to the Deceased with broken Soda Bottle on his Neck and Chest. There was scuffle between the Accused and the Deceased and both of them rolled down. The Deceased attempted to take away the Soda Bottle from the Accused, which caused injuries on the Left Arm of the Accused. Despite searching cross-examination, nothing substantial is elicited from P.Ws.1 and 2 shaking their consistent version. Learned Sessions Judge accepted their evidence as inspiring the confidence of the Court and we find no reason to take a different view. 13. Case of Prosecution is strengthened by Medical Witness. During Autopsy, P.W.6-Dr.Sampathkumar has noted:- i.A curved incised wound in the lateral aspect of Left Side of Neck. In exploration of the wound, Platysma cut and sternocleid mastoid cut and external and internal jugular veins cut and common carotid arteries found partially cut and ligature seen above and below the cut and there is clot seen around the vessel; ii.A stab wound in the lateral Chest well of Left side; iii.An abrasion in the Nose. After the occurrence, Babu was immediately taken to the Hospital for treatment. P.W.12-Head Constable has recorded Ex.P.19-Statement of Babu. The contents of Ex.P.19-Statement being made by Deceased person has higher evidentiary value. Ex.P.19 is a substantive piece of evidence lending assurance to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 14. Prosecution case is interalia attacked mainly on the variation in the scene of occurrence. Learned counsel for the Accused has submitted that the Prosecution has not come out with the true version as to the scene of occurrence whether it was in the Arrack Shop or in the “Salna Shop”. This contention when considered in the light of Ex.P.21-Rough Plan has no force. From Ex.P.21-Rough Plan, it is seen that in and around the scene of occurrence, there are number of Arrack shops. “Salna Shop” of P.W.1 is shown as Serial No.1. The “Salna Shop” is just abutting the Arrack Shop. In Ex.P.21, the scene of crime is clearly stated as “...South Eastern Corner of “Salna Shop”...”. From Ex.P.21-Rough Plan, it is seen that in and around the scene of occurrence, there are number of Arrack shops. “Salna Shop” of P.W.1 is shown as Serial No.1. The “Salna Shop” is just abutting the Arrack Shop. In Ex.P.21, the scene of crime is clearly stated as “...South Eastern Corner of “Salna Shop”...”. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the occurrence was in the Arrack Shop. Since the “Salna Shop” just abutting the Arrack Shop, we find no material variation in the discrepancy in the scene of occurrence. 15. The defence set forth by the Accused is that about fifteen persons were taken to custody along with the Accused and others were let off and that a false case has been registered against the Accused alone. This defence plea has no substance. As noted earlier, during the occurrence, there was scuffle between the Accused and the Deceased. The Deceased tried to pull out the Soda Bottle from the Accused. In that fight, the Accused sustained injuries on his Left Fore Arm above the Wrist. After the arrest of the Accused on 07.09.2000, he was sent to Hospital for Treatment. From Ex.P.8-Accident Register of the Accused, it is seen that he has sustained cut injury on the Left Arm above the Wrist, which is said to have been caused at about 07.00 a.m by Soda Bottle. Sustaining injuries by the Accused discredits the defence version that amidst fifteen persons, a false case has been registered against the Accused alone. This defence plea was rightly negatived by the learned Sessions Judge. 16. Case of Prosecution revolving around the evidence of Eye Witnesses – P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Statement of Deceased-Ex.P.19 and the Medical Evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused mainly confined his arguments that the offence committed by the Accused would not fall under Sec.302 I.P.C, but would only fall under Sec.304(II) I.P.C – a lesser offence. Learned counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that there was no previous enmity between the Accused and the Deceased and that the young offender like the Accused has caused the injuries in a fit of anger. It is strange case wherein the Accused – young offender aged 19 years has picked up wordy quarrel and attacking the Deceased person, who is aged about 60 years. The occurrence was on the early hours of 06.09.2000. It is strange case wherein the Accused – young offender aged 19 years has picked up wordy quarrel and attacking the Deceased person, who is aged about 60 years. The occurrence was on the early hours of 06.09.2000. After taking Liquor, there must have been heated exchange between the parties. The Accused might have been enraged over the wordy exchange and struck the Deceased in the heat of passion. The Accused had no motive or pre-plan to attack the Deceased. The Accused has taken up broken Soda Bottle piece lying aside the shop of P.W.1 to cause injuries. The attack on the Neck has cut external and internal jugular veins, cutting the common carotid arteries. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries and the manner of attack, we are of the view that the offence committed by the Accused would fall only under Sec.304(II) I.P.C and not under Sec.302 I.P.C. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Sentence of Six years of Imprisonment would meet the ends of Justice. 17. C.A.No.1263 of 2002:- The Conviction of the Appellant / Accused in S.C.No.31 of 2001 under Sec.302 I.P.C is altered into Sec.304(II) I.P.C under Sec.386(b)(ii) Crl.P.C. For the Conviction under Sec.304(II) I.P.C, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of Six years. Fine amount imposed on the Appellant / Accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikkal in S.C.No.31 of 2001 is confirmed. This Appeal is partly allowed to the extent stated above.