Ponnusamy vs State Of T.Nadu Rep.By Insp.Of Police

The relevant facts

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Sekhar (deceased No.2) was running a Saw Mill, taken on lease, in which business he was assisted by his brothers Radhakrishnan (deceased No.1) and Rajendran (PW

2). The second accused, Munuswamy, who used to work in the Saw Mill was taken to task by Sekhar for unauthorized sale of some timber from the Saw Mill. The said incident happened on 3.10.2003. According to the prosecution, accused Munuswamy left the place threatening revenge and on 5.10.2003 he came to the house of Sekhar alongwith Ponnusamy (accused No.1) Mailraj (accused No.3) and Madavan (accused No.4).

3. On 5.10.2003 at about 10.00 A.M. the deceased Sekhar had come out of the Saw Mill to go to his house for coffee. His house was just opposite the saw mill. At that time accused Ponnuswamy assaulted Sekhar with his slippers and instigated the other accused to assault him. It is the prosecution case that, on such instigation, accused No. 3 assaulted Sekhar on his head with a stick; the accused No. 4 assaulted the deceased on his forehead with a brick whereas the first accused stabbed the deceased with a knife. The prosecution has further alleged that on seeing Sekhar being assaulted, Radhakrishnan (deceased No.2) came running whereafter, the second accused caught hold of him and the first accused Ponnusamy stabbed him on his back with the knife. Similar assault on PW 2 and PW 3, who had also come to the spot, was committed by the first accused Ponnusamy with the knife. According to the prosecution all the injured persons were profusely bleeding and the accused had fled away from the place. Thereafter, the injured persons were brought to the Government Hospital at Thanjayur. On examination, Radhakrishnan was pronounced dead and Sekhar was admitted in the hospital with injuries alongwith PWs 2 and 3. Prosecution had also claimed that at about 3 p.m. of the same day, i.e 05.10.2003 a telephonic information with regard to the incident was conveyed by the police outpost in the Government Hospital at Thanjayur which was received by PW 16 at the Needamangalam Police Station. The said information, according to the prosecution, was entered in the general diary of the police station and brought to the notice of PW 20, Sivagananavelu, Inspector of Police. Thereafter PW 20 reached the hospital at about 4-4.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of Sekhar (Exh.P.37) on the basis of which the FIR (Exh.P.38) was lodged. A requisition was sent to PW 15 (Judicial Magistrate) to record the statements of Sekhar and PW 2 Rajendran and PW 3 Nagaraj in the Government Hospital at Thanjayur. Accordingly, the aforesaid statements were recorded which were subsequently marked as Exh.P.22 and P.23 (dying declaration of deceased Sekhar), Exh.24 and Exh. 25 (statement of PW 3 Nagaraja) and Exh.26 and Exh. 27 (Statement of PW 2 Rajendran). The prosecution had also claimed that after registration of the FIR at about 6.30 p.m., PW 20 commenced his investigation by visiting the place of occurrence at about 7.45 pm in the course of which he prepared a sketch; collected samples of blood stained earth and sample earth and had also recorded the statements of persons acquainted with the offence under the provisions of section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including the statements of Sekhar (deceased No.1), PW 2 Rajendran and PW 3 Nagaraj.

4. According to the prosecution, on 05.10.2003 itself Sekhar (deceased) , PW 2 and PW 3 were examined by PW 11 Dr. Balasubramanian who was then working as a Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Thanjayur. The injuries sustained by the aforesaid persons were recorded in the Accident Register maintained by the Hospital. On the same day Radhakrishnan was also brought before him but by that time he was already dead. Post-mortem of the deceased Radhakrishnan was performed by PW 14 Dr. Vijayalakshmi on the next day, i.e, 06.10.2003. It is also the prosecution case that in the course of investigation the first accused Ponnusamy has made a statement on the basis of which certain recoveries were made including the recovery of a knife which was seized by Seizure List (Exh.P.8 and subsequently exhibited in the trial as material object No.3). Thereafter, at the conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons under section 302, 304 and 307 of the IPC. The accused persons were tried in the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and each one of them was found guilty of the offences alleged. Aggrieved, the accused persons had filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 27.10.2006 while maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant (first accused before the learned trial court) and the sentences imposed, has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the other accused. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the first accused, Ponnuswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused – appellant’ ).

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the High Court.