Mookkiah & Anr vs State Tr.Insp. Of Police, Tamil Nadu

2) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

(d) Thereupon, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and one Kanaka Raj, went to the Kallidaikurichi P.S. and PW-1 lodged a complaint against both the accused persons which was registered as Crime No. 173 of 1992 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

(e) After investigation, both the accused persons were arrested and charges were framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 264 of 1996.

In the complaint, it was stated that as his daughter-Parvathi was pregnant, she was brought to his house for delivery and a female child was born to her 25 days back. After delivery, her daughter stayed in his house with her child and his son-in-law Ramaiah stayed with his parents. It was further stated that on 12.05.1992, in the early morning, about 05.30 hours, when he was returning alongwith Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam after pouring water to the plantation, at that time, they heard the shouting of his son- in-law “Don’t kill me”. On hearing the same, they rushed towards the spot and noticed that Subbiah (A-2) was having a big aruval (bill hook) in his hand and Mookkiah (A-1) was holding a small aruval and were attacking on the face and back of Ramaiah-the deceased. When all the three went there shouting “Don’t cut, Don’t cut”, at that time, Subbiah (A-2) and Mookkiah (A-1) ran towards eastern direction. They noticed cut injuries on neck, shoulder back and head of his son-in-law and blood was oozing from the cut wounds. They also noticed that he was dead. Thereafter, all the three persons informed Alagamuthu, father of Ramaiah and the Village Headman about the same and later they along with others saw the dead body of Ramaiah. It was further stated that approx. one week before, Subbiah (A-2) met him and warned that his son-in-law Ramaiah called his (Subbiah’s) wife Mukkammal for sex and he threatened that he won’t spare him and as per the say, Subbiah and Mookkiah murdered his son-in-law Ramaiah. Thereafter, he along with Sudalaimuthu, Shanmugam, Kanaka Raj came to Kallidaikurichi P.S. at about 08.00 hours and informed the same which was recorded on 12.05.1992 at 08.06 hours and registered as Crime No. 173/1992 under Section 302 IPC. A perusal of Exh. P-1 complaint discloses the full narration of the incident by PW-1 and the persons accompanied him and motive for murdering the deceased.

9) With the above principles, let us analyze the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the High Court in interfering with the order of acquittal and awarding imprisonment for life.

Evidence of PW-5:

Evidence of PW-2:

As rightly observed by the High court, since the parties are hailing from a remote village, the villagers might take food even at odd hours after finishing certain work in their fields and it cannot be precisely predict based on the undigested food particles alone. The High Court has adverted to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition and after noting all the relevant details has rightly concluded that the observation of the doctor relating to the injuries and her general opinion at the time of death which occurred 28-30 hours tally with the narration of eye- witnesses and concluded that in such a case mere inference of the doctor with reference to undigested food particles could not threw the prosecution case. We fully agree with the discussion and the ultimate conclusion on this aspect by the High Court. The evidence of PWs 1 and 5 coupled with the version in Exh.P-1 would state that the occurrence took place at 5.30 a.m. while the deceased was passing stool, as such, the timings mentioned by the doctor, occurrence and other witnesses tally with the narration. Accordingly, we reject the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants with reference to existence of undigested particles n the post mortem by PW-2.

Other objections:

2 guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murdering Ramaiah in pursuance of their common intention and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. We fully agree with the said conclusion.

21) Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

JANUARY 04, 2013.