IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 of 2008 Pandi @ Virumandi .. Appellant/ Accused Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, J1 Saidapet Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.863 of 2004). .. Respondent/ Complainant This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai made in S.C.No.724 of 2004 dated 31.01.2005. For Appellant : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondent: Mr.P.Kumaresan, APP JUDGMENT (The judgment of the court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN, J.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 in S.C.No.724 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The appeal is filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.724 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Chennai, against the judgment of the trial court, convicting him under Sec.302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: P.W.1, in his evidence, stated that he is eking out his livelihood by picking plastic papers and selling the same. On 14.8.2004, at 8.30 p.m., near Saidapet Bus stand, he saw his Son-in-law who is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the appellant herein, making allegations against his wife (the daughter of the P.W.1 and the deceased) with filthy language and thereafter running behind the deceased who was carrying a water pot, stabbed her on her back and pushed her down on the floor. Thereafter, the appellant/accused climbed on her and sat on her chest and stabbed her. On seeing that, he came running and caught hold of his Son-in-law with the help of the public and thereafter went to the J1 Police station, Saidapet and handed over him to the police authorities. At the police station, a complaint Ex.P1 was given by him with regard to the offence committed by his Son-in- law. P.W.2 who is the brother of the deceased, in his evidence, has stated that on the same day and at the same time, he saw the appellant/accused, stabbing his sister with a knife, who was bringing water at that time. He also deposed that the appellant made his sister lie down and stabbed her on her stomach. He further stated that his father and others were present at that time and they caught hold of the appellant and thereafter, the accused was handed over to the police station. 4. P.W.5, in his evidence stated that on 14.8.2004, at about 9.00 p.m., when he was talking to others, the accused came there and asked P.W.1, his father-in-law about the whereabouts of the deceased, for which, P.W.1, father-in-law informed him that she had gone to fetch water. The appellant/accused told P.W.1 that he was going to beat and stab her after she came back. P.W.5 further stated that when the deceased was coming with water, the appellant/accused abused her in filthy language and pushed her down. Thereafter, the appellant/accused took out a knife and stabbed her. On seeing that, all of them caught hold of the appellant/accused and P.W.5, P.W.1, P.W.2 and others went to the police station and handed over him to the authorities at the police station. 5. P.W.4, in his evidence, stated that he is an auto driver and on 14.8.2004, at about 9.00 p.m., he was taking his meal at his house. On hearing a noise outside, he came out to see what was happening. He saw the appellant/accused pushing down his wife/the deceased and stabbed her. All of them captured the accused/appellant and handed over him to the police station. 6. P.W.9, in his evidence deposed that he is attached to the J1 Police station as Head Constable in the Law & Order department. On 14.8.2004, when he was on duty, he received the information that the appellant/accused stabbed his wife Devi and on that information, he went to the place of occurrence and made arrangements to send the body to be brought to the hospital. He also requested the Doctor, P.W.10 to conduct a post-mortem and after post mortem was conducted the body was handed over to P.W.1, the father of the deceased. 7. P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. In his deposition, P.W.10 stated that he is at present working in Madras Medical College and on 15.8.2004, when https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he was working in Royapettah Hospital, on the request of the Inspector of Police, J1 Police Station, Saidapet, he conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. According to him, the deceased died due to the stab injuries inflicted on her. 8. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police, attached to Saidapet Police Station. He stated in his evidence that on 14.8.2004, at about 9.30 p.m., when he was on duty at the station, the appellant/accused was brought to the police station by P.W.1 and P.W.1 gave a complaint that his daughter was killed by the accused/appellant by inflicting injuries on her body with a knife. On the basis of the complaint, he registered an F.I.R. in Cr.No.863 of 2004 under Sec.302 I.P.C. He further stated that he seized the knife M.O.1 used by the accused/appellant at 9.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses under Mahazar Ex.P10 and thereafter took up the investigation. The final report was submitted by him after completing the investigation accusing the appellant guilty of murdering his wife. 9. The case was taken up on file in S.C.No.724 of 2004 and the appellant was questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the appellant pleaded innocence. He answered that the case is a false one which is foisted against him. 10. Eleven witnesses were examined and 20 documents were filed on behalf of the prosecution besides filing five material objects. No document was filed nor any witness was examined on behalf of the accused. 11. After hearing both the sides, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused/appellant has committed the murder of his own wife and found him guilty under Sec.302 I.P.C. The trial court awarded the sentence of life imprisonment besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the above appeal has been filed by the accused under Sec.374(2) of Cr.P.C. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the charges against the appellant have been proved beyond doubt when P.W.1 and P.W.3 are interested witnesses, who are the father and brother of the deceased respectively. He further contends that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are chance witnesses and their presence itself at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and consequently their evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial court has committed an illegality in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is the further case of the learned counsel that if the entire evidence is re-appreciated and re-evaluated, it will certainly prove that the prosecution has failed to establish the case and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed and the accused is to be acquitted. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took us to the entire evidence and submitted that it will prove beyond doubt that the appellant has committed the murder, for which, the sentence has been rightly imposed by the trial court. 15. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. 16. The evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, P.W.2, the brother of the deceased, P.W.5 and P.W.4 who are the independent witnesses, all will prove beyond doubt that the appellant stabbed his wife while she was carrying water. Therefore, the evidences given by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.4 could not be rejected on the ground that they are interested and chance witnesses, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. All the above said witnesses spoke about the overt act attributed to the appellant and they were direct eye-witnesses to the scene of occurrence. 17. That apart, P.W.11 after completing the investigation, produced all the relevant material objects and documents which would go to prove that it is the appellant alone who has stabbed his wife on that day as he accused his wife of infidelity. Therefore, if the entire evidence adduced before the trial court is re-examined and re-evaluated, we find cogency and enough materials to prove beyond doubt that it is the appellant who committed the murder and therefore, we are of the considered view that the trial court has not only come to the right conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Sec.302 I.P.C., but also, has rightly awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 18. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed and thereby upholding the judgment of the trial court. 19. In the result, the Crl.A.No.255 of 2008 is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. vaan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai. 2. do thro the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai 3. The 9th Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet. 4. thro the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai 5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 6.The Inspector of Police, J1 Saidapet Police Station, Chennai.(Crime No.863 of 2004) 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to MR.S. Kalyanaraman, advocate, SR. 71119 CRL.A.No.255 of 2008 GV (CO) kk 12/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/