Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 499 (MAD)

M. Sekar v. State by Inspector of Police

2006-02-24

A.R.RAMALINGAM, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal filed against the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 at Chengalpattu in S.C.No.340 of 2000 dated 23.7.2002.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Sekar, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. This appeal has been filed challenging the same. 2. The brief facts leading to the conviction are as follows: - (a) The deceased Prema got already married to P.W.12. They have got two children. The accused Sekar, an Auto Driver got married to P.W.13. They have also got children. Unfortunately, the accused developed an illicit intimacy with the deceased Prema. Ultimately, the deceased deserted her husband P.W.12 and lived with the accused along with his family. However, after two years, the deceased took decision to join her husband back. Therefore, the deceased left the company of the accused and was living separately. (b) On 23.2.1999, after finishing her work, she went to T.Nagar along with her aunt P.W.1 and took food in Rathna Hotel. When they came out, the accused came there and asked the deceased to come with him, so that he could have a private talk with reference to reunion. So, all the three went in an Auto and reached Neelankarai. The deceased and accused were talking there for some time. The deceased told that she would not join him back as she had decided to live with her husband and children. Then, all the three came back in the Auto. Within a few feet, the accused stopped the Auto and asked the deceased to get down from the Auto. Then, he took out a knife and indiscriminately stabbed all over the body of the deceased stating that "I cannot live without you and therefore, I kill you. I will also commit suicide". So saying, he also inflicted injuries on his stomach with the knife. The deceased fell down and died on the spot. The accused also fell down unconscious. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Geetha, P.W.2, Babu, another Auto Driver and P.W.3 Manickavel, who is a Constable and who was in duty as C.I.D. Police. (c) Thereafter P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the Police Station and gave the complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police. The accused also fell down unconscious. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Geetha, P.W.2, Babu, another Auto Driver and P.W.3 Manickavel, who is a Constable and who was in duty as C.I.D. Police. (c) Thereafter P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the Police Station and gave the complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. P.W.19 came to the spot along with the Photographer and asked him to take photos of the persons lying on the ground and the Auto. Then, he arranged for taking the accused to the hospital. Accordingly, he was sent to the hospital. Then, P.W.19 sent message to the Inspector of Police P.W.21. (d) P.W.21, the Inspector of Police came to the spot, observed all the formalities, prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and recovered the materials available in the scene. He also conducted the inquest. (e) The accused was admitted by P.W.20. P.W.20 Doctor issued Accident Register-Ex.P14. He was given treatment by the Doctor P.W.16. Then he was arrested by P.W.21. (f) P.W.22, who succeeded P.W.21, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. (g) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, filed 16 exhibits and marked 22 material objects. (h) The plea of the accused, while he was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was one of total denial. Further, he stated that when he and the deceased Prema were in Neelankarai Beach some persons came there and attacked both of them and he was admitted in the hospital. (i) The Trial Court placed reliance on the materials produced by the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the sole witness P.W.3 is a chance witness and inasmuch as he is not able to describe the place of occurrence correctly as his statement is not in consonance with the Observation Mahazar and mahazar witness, he cannot be believed as an eye witness and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties. 6. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties. 6. According to the prosecution, the accused on coming to know that the deceased would not come and join him back, he decided to kill her and to kill himself. Though the accused tried his level best to convince her and take her back with him, she refused to come. Therefore, he took his knife and stabbed on various parts of the body of the deceased and after causing her death, he also inflicted injuries on his stomach. Fortunately, he was saved. 7. The eye witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1, who accompanied the deceased to Neelankarai Beach, where the occurrence had taken place, had given the complaint. However, P.W.1 turned hostile. P.W.2 Babu, who went the Police Station for lodging the complaint, also turned hostile. The only eye witness is P.W.3, who is a Police Constable attached to C.I.D., specially posted for duty in the Neelankarai area where the occurrence had taken place. 8. Merely because P.W.3 is a chance witness, we cannot reject his evidence in toto. On the other hand, his evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence deposed by P.W.15, the Postmortem Doctor and also Ex.P14 issued by P.W.20 Doctor, who gave treatment to the accused. It is clear from Ex.P14, that the accused told the Doctor that the injuries found on his stomach were inflicted by himself. 9. On going through the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that he has given a cogent and consistent evidence and he has no axe to grind as against the accused. As a matter of fact, only at the instance of P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the Police Station, as spoken to by P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police and the name of P.W.3 is also mentioned in Ex.P1. 10. In the light of the above oral evidence adduced by P.W.3, P.W.19 and P.W.20 and also in the light of the other documents, namely, Ex.P14, the Wound Certificate and Ex.P11, the Post Mortem Certificate, we are of the view that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as we are very much impressed with the evidence of P.W.3, the sole eye witness. 11. 11. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the Trial Court are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to get the accused into custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.