IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
Lakshmanan - Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Kancheepuram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2018
Decided On : 04-06-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389 – India Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 – Offence of punishment – Injuries - They have witnessed incident from distance of about meters where they were taking tender coconut and immediately they rushed towards deceased only to see that deceased had succumbed to injuries - Immediately went to police Station and lodged complaint - Complaint was given by specifically pointing out that at time of occurrence even though he saw accused causing cut injuries on his wife he could not proceed towards her immediately since he was handicapped with his disabled legs - It was further stated that even though rushed towards deceased accused had fled away from scene of occurrence by then On basis of the complaint Sub-Inspector of Police Station registered case in Crime offence punishable Section of IPC against appellant accused - First Information Report which was forwarded to Court as well as higher police officials – Held, Court have examined Post-mortem report wherein it was clearly indicated that stomach - empty according they along with deceased had lunch occurrence had allegedly taken place within an hour the version are true that they had lunch one hour before occurrence post-mortem report could have indicated traces of food in abdomen of deceased - This gives rise to suspicion that occurrence could not have taken place in manner and time as projected by prosecution - In this context counsel for appellant relied on decision of Supreme Court in case wherein in an identical case it was held that when it was case of prosecution witness that deceased after taking snacks went out in company of respondent and post-mortem report indicates that stomach of deceased was found empty during post-mortem deposition of falsifies on that count - Decision squarely applies to the facts of case - Court also observe that motive for occurrence has not been established by prosecution - None of prosecution witnesses leave alone have spoken to about motive have only stated that family of accused and their family are not in talking terms - This is grossly insufficient to hold that due to past motive occurrence had taken place - Court also take notice of fact that in first information report name of accused has been clearly mentioned - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 389 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment dated 02.04.2018 passed in S.C. No. 226 of 2014 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Sessions Court, Chengalpattu.)
R. Subbiah, J.
1. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C. No. 226 of 2014 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. He stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- failing which to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Assailing the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution, as putforth before the trial court, is succinctly narrated hereunder.
3. The deceased in this case is Suseela, who is the wife of PW1. PW2 in this case is the brother of the deceased Suseela and brother-in-law of PW1. On 15.10.2013, at about 15.00 hours, just after finishing her lunch along with PW1 and PW2, the deceased engaged herself in cutting the grass near Nellikai Well adjacent to the land of one Kistappa Naicker. It is alleged that at that time, the accused demanded the deceased to have sexual intercourse with him, but it was refused by the deceased. Enraged by such refusal of the deceased, the accused cut the deceased with a knife on her left hand, back, neck and other vital parts of her body, with the result, the deceased fell to the ground in a pool of blood. According to PW1 and PW2, they have witnessed the incident from a distance of about 300 meters where they were taking tender coconut and immediately, they rushed towards the deceased only to see that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. Immediately, PW1 went to the police Station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1 at about 5.00 pm. The complaint was given by PW1 specifically pointing out that at the time of occurrence, even though he saw the accused causing cut injuries on his wife, he could not proceed towards her immediately since he was handicapped with his disabled legs. It was further stated that even though PW2 rushed towards the deceased, the accused had fled away from the scene of occurrence, by then. On the basis of the complaint, Ex.P1, PW13, Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 512 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/accused. Ex.P17 is the First Information Report, which was forwarded to the Court as well as higher police officials.
4. It is the further case of prosecution that when the complaint was forwarded to PW16, Inspector of Police, he directed PW13, the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station to proceed to the scene of occurrence. Accordingly, PW13 along with Mahendran, Head Constable, PW14 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and arranged for taking photographs. Thereafter, he handed over the dead body to PW14, Head Constable with a request to keep the dead body in the mortuary of Chengalpet Government Hospital.
5. PW16 is the investigation officer in this case. He, on receipt of the first information report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence in the early morning of 16.10.2013 at 6.00 am. The scene of occurrence was identified by Premkumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, PW13. After reaching the scene of occurrence, PW16 prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P20 and rough sketch, Ex.P21 in the presence of witnesses Balaji, PW5 and one Venkatesan. He has also collected blood stained soil and grass and ordinary soil as well as grass in the presence of the same witnesses. PW16 also recovered MO6, Aruval which would be used for cutting grass, from the scene of occurrence and they were sent to the forensic department for examination. Thereafter, PW16 proceeded to the mortuary of Chengalpattu Government Hospital where the dead body of the deceased was kept. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatars. Ex.P22 is the inquest repor
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.