IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 8-12-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN CRL.A.No.825 of 2007 Ramu @ Ramamurthy .. Appellant/Accused vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police Latheri P.S. Crime No.100/1999 of Panamadangi P.S. .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and F.T.C., Vellore, made in S.C.No.23 of 2002 dated 28.8.2003. For Appellant : Mr.Abdul Lathif For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Vellore, made in S.C.No.23 of 2002 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 (2 counts) IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment for each count which was ordered to run concurrently. 2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated as follows: (a) P.W.2 is the wife of the second deceased Degan @ Thiyagarajan, while P.W.6 is the wife of the first deceased Ganesan. They were living at Senji Krishnapuram Colony. The accused also belonged to the same place. The accused had illicit intimacy with one Kala, the wife of one Sohan, the brother-in-law of P.W.2. A panchayat was convened, and they were warned; but, he did not stop. Then, Sohan committed suicide. Even then, it continued. Thus the relationship of both the families was not only strained, but also they were on inimical terms. On 20.10.1999 at about 12.00 Noon, one Indhira came to take water from the pipe situated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in front of P.W.2's house. At that time, Degan was cutting a tree, a branch of which fell on the aluminium vessel kept in a basket which belonged to Indhira. On seeing this, Indhira abused Degan, and there was a wordy altercation between the families. At about 5.00 P.M., on that day, both the family members were scolding each other in most filthy language. P.W.2 went to inform Ganesan, the elder brother of her husband, about the incident. At about 6.00 P.M., Ganesan was on his way and was standing near the palmyra tree. At that time, through the village odai, the accused was coming near the cattle shed of one Gopal. On seeing the accused, Ganesan questioned about the incident and the conduct of the family of the accused. Immediately, uttering the words "Who are you to ask. I will finish off one by one", the accused took a palakathi marked as M.O.5 and attacked Ganesan forcibly on the neck. He fell down. On seeing this, Degan went nearby and interfered. Immediately, the accused turned with the palakathi and attacked him on his neck and head repeatedly. He also fell down. Both died at the spot. This was witnessed by P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5. The accused went away from the place of occurrence. (b) P.W.2 rushed to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer of the place, who recorded the statement, Ex.P1, given by her. Then, he proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, was present at that time, and he registered a case in Crime No.100/99 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P20, was sent to the Court through a Constable. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, took up investigation, rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P21. Then, he caused the photographs to be taken which are marked as M.O.8 series. He conducted inquest on both the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared two inquest reports, Ex.P22, in respect of Ganesan, and Ex.P23, in respect of Degan. Both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital along with requisitions, Exs.P8 and P10, for the purpose of autopsy. (d) P.W.3, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ganesan and has noticed 4 external injuries. The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P9, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage as a result of injury to carotid vessels of left side 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. (e) The same Doctor, P.W.3, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Degan @ Thiagarajan and has noticed 3 external injuries. He has issued a postmortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage as a result of injury to carotid vessels of left side 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. (f) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 21.10.1999. He came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part is marked as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P6, pursuant to which he produced M.O.5, palakathi, M.O.6, bloodstained lungi, and M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Further, the accused gave a complaint on the strength of which a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.101 of 1999 under Sec.324 of IPC against three persons. The FIR, Ex.P26, prepared in that case was despatched to the Court. The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in Ex.P14, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P16, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 26 exhibits and 14 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced, scrutinized the materials available and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found him guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this Court. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that despite the same, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view; that P.W.2 is a star witness, according to the prosecution; but, P.W.2 changed the place of occurrence and also the time of occurrence; that according to the FIR, the place of occurrence was actually the odai; but, according to the evidence of P.W.2 before the Court, the occurrence has taken place 400 feet away from odai near the lamp post situated at the church; that under the circumstances, the place of occurrence was thoroughly different; that as far as the time of occurrence was concerned, according to the earliest report given by her to P.W.1, the VAO, it was at about 6.00 P.M.; but, according to her evidence before the Court, it was 8.00 P.M.; that it would be quite evident that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that apart from that, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6; that their evidence cannot be relied on at all for the simple reason that according to P.W.2, these witnesses came to know about the occurrence only on information, and hence they could not have seen the occurrence at all. 5.Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, there was a delay noticed; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 6.00 P.M. and the FIR has come into existence at 9.30 P.M.; that there was a delay of 3 ½ hours though the police station is situated within 5 kilometers from the place of occurrence; that apart from that, there was a delay in FIR reaching the Court; that according to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, he registered the case at about 9.30 P.M.; but, the FIR has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, at about 8.30 A.M. on the next day; that there was a delay of 11 hours; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the prosecution had no explanation to offer; that even the Constable who took the FIR, has not been examined; that apart from that, in the inquest reports of both the deceased, except the name of P.W.2, no one's name is mentioned as eyewitness; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case or bring home the guilt of the accused; but, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view since it has been carried away by the fact that it was a double murder, and hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7.It is not in controversy that in an incident that took place at 6.00 P.M. on 20.10.1999, both the deceased Ganesan and Degan @ Thiyagarajan have died. Both the dead bodies following the inquest made by the Investigator, P.W.17, who prepared the inquest reports, Exs.P22 and P23 respectively, were subjected to postmortem by P.W.3, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion as a witness before the Court and also in the postmortem certificates, Exs.P9 and P11 respectively, that the deceased died of shock due to haemorrhage as a result of injury to carotid vessels on left side. This fact was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court, and hence no impediment is felt by the Court in recording that both the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 8.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who committed the crime of double murder, the prosecution marched four witnesses as occurrence witnesses who are P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6. No doubt, P.Ws.2 and 6 are the wives of both the deceased respectively, and P.Ws.4 and 5 are two independent witnesses. The case of the prosecution was that originally, the accused had illicit intimacy with one Kala the wife of Sohan, the brother-in-law of P.W.2, and the matter was also brought before the panchayat. Despite the warning, they did not pay heed to the words, and the accused continued to have the illicit intimacy with her. Under the circumstances, Sohan committed suicide, and thereafter also, he continued to have it. On the date of occurrence, there was a wordy altercation between the family members, and when it was questioned by Ganesan, the accused immediately uttering "I will finish every one", cut him with the palakathi. When the other deceased Degan came to the rescue, he was also done to death immediately. This occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6 according to the prosecution. All have spoken about the occurrence. Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all since she has changed the place and time of occurrence cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that P.W.2 is a villager. She was unable to tell the place of occurrence. But, at the same time, it could be seen that the place of occurrence even as found in the FIR and also in the evidence was not far off. That apart, the occurrence has taken place in the month of October, and she was not conscious of the time factor. It is true that when she gave the report, it is mentioned as 6.00 P.M., and when she gave evidence before the Court, she has stated as 8.00 P.M. She was a rustic lady, and hence, the time factor need not be given much weight. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant has got to be discountenanced from the point of view of the registration of the case by the very same police station in Crime No.101/99 at the instance of the accused. The said case was also registered under Sec.324 of IPC. The accident register copy in respect of the accused is actually marked as Ex.P19, and the FIR is Ex.P26. A reading of the FIR in Crime No.101/99 would clearly indicate the time and place of occurrence. He has also categorically stated that in the same transaction, he caused the death of both Ganesan and Degan. The said case was actually taken up for investigation by the Investigator. Thus, the prosecution has not suppressed any factual position before the Court, and that case was actually referred as mistake of fact. Further, P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6 have spoken in one voice as to the occurrence. Their evidence stood fully corroborated by the FIR, Ex.P26, in Crime No.101/99 which was at the instance of the accused. 10.Added further, the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through the above witnesses stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed through the evidence of P.W.3 and the postmortem certificates Exs.P9 and P11 issued by him. Further, at the time of arrest, the accused came forward to give a confessional statement, and M.O.5, knife, M.O.6, lungi, and M.O.7, shirt, produced by him, were all recovered under a cover of mahazar. They were all subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department along with the material objects taken from the place of occurrence, and the clothes of both the deceased. The blood group at the time of analysis was found to be tallying. Thus, the scientific evidence was also in support of the prosecution. 11.All the above would go to show that the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever. It is a case of double murder and the accused has actually uttered that he would finish off one by one, and so saying, caused the death of both the deceased at a time without any excuse whatsoever. Under the circumstances, it was an act of murder, and the lower Court has correctly marshaled the evidence and found him guilty as per the charge of murder (two counts). Hence the judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained. 12.Accordingly, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the lower Court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore. 4. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. 6. The Inspector of Police Latheri Police Station, Panamadangi P.S. 7. The District Collector, Vellore. 8. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 4. 9.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.Abdul Lathif, Advocate, SR.68657. CRL.A.No.825 of 2007 CK(CO) RVL 16.12.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/