Re-produced below is a Judgment available at Court Website.
It's very funny reading the judgment.
"In the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari
at Nagercoil.
Present: Thiru S. Kumaraguru, B.L.,
District and Sessions Judge.
Monday the 9th day of July 2012.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 19/2010
(P.R.C.No. 16/2009 of Judicial Magistrate
Court No. II, Nagercoil.)
Name of the Accused : T. Manikandan, Aged 27/09
S/o Thankappan,
Melatherukarai,
Vathiarvilai,
Krishnancoil,
Nagercoil.
Name of the complainant : State of Tamil Nadu, by its
the Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
(Crime No. 390/2009)
Charge : u/s 302 of IPC.
(For murder of Rajan)
Plea of the Accused : Not guilty
Findings of the Judge : Accused found guilty for the offence
u/s 302 IPC.
Judgment and Order :In the result the accused is found guilty
for the offence u/s 302 IPC and the
accused is convicted and sentenced to
undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two
2
Thousand only) in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for
four years for the offence u/s 302
IPC. M.O.1. to M.O.5. are
ordered to be destroyed after
the appeal time is over.
Name of the Counsel for the : Thiru A. Gnanasekar,
State Public Prosecutor.
Name of the Counsel for the : Thiru J.Justin Jespara Dhas,
Accused Thiru N. Perumal Pillai,
Advocates, Nagercoil.
This case is coming on 27.06.2012 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Thiru A. Gnanasekar, Public
Prosecutor for the State and of Thiru J.Justin Jespara Dhas
and Thiru N. Perumal Pillai, Advocates for the accused and
after hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing
the written arguments notes filed by the accused side and on
perusing the oral and documentary records and having stood
over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the
following :-
3
JUDGMENT
The accused was charged by the police for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by stating that
the deceased Rajan and accused Manikandan were friends.
Prior to the occurrence on 02.06.2009 at about 08.15 hours
some quarrel was happened in between Rajan (since deceased)
and the accused. At the time the accused has threatened to
the deceased Rajan to kill him. Due to previous motive in
between them on 03.06.2009 at 1.15 hours when the deceased
and hi friends were playing cards in Sivathanu
Kalyanamandapam which was situated at Crown Street,
Vathiyarvilai in Krishnancoil at that time the accused was
came to the kalyana mandabam . He was assaulted and
stabbed the deceased Rajan on his right side of accused neck
by means of knife. Due to such occurrence the said Rajan was
died. For saying such acts constitutes for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. On the appearance of the accused, before the
committal court, the copies of relevant documents were
furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The
committal court has perusal of the records and it is revealed
that the offence involved in the case is exclusively triable by
the court of Sessions. Hence the committal court has
committed the case records to this court to disposed the case
according to law.
4
3. On the appearance of the accused before this court,
this court has satisfied that prima faice case is made out
against the accused. Then this court has framed the charge
against the accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC. The above said charge was read over to the
accused. The accused was having understood the contents of
charge and denied by him for the involvement in the
commission of crime and he was pleaded innocent and
claimed a detailed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the prosecution case,
the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and Ext.P.1. to
P.16 were marked and M.O.1. to M.O.5 are marked. On the
other hand on the side of the accused one Rajkumar was
examined as D.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The case as revealed from the evidence of witnesses
adduced on the side of prosecution which is as follows :-
P.W.1. David, who is brother of the deceased Rajan.
On 02.06.2009 at about 8’O Clock, previous to this
occurrence some wordy quarrel happened between accused
Manikandan and his brother deceased Rajan. The P.W.1 was
intercepted the occurrence and pacified the matter. Then on
3.6.2009, the deceased, his brother P.W.1 and his friends were
playing cards, at the time the accused was come to there.
Then the accused has assaulted his brother and stabbed his
brother’s neck with knife. At the time P.W.1. was crying and
5
raised alarm, the accused was ran away from the occurrence
place. Thereafter the deceased Rajan was brought to the
Government Hospital by accused and his another one brother
and admitted there. The doctor has examined his brother. He
was informed that his brother was dead. Then P.W.1. went to
the Police Station and had given complaint which was marked
as Ext.P.1.
6. P.W.2. is Manikandan who deposed in his
evidence that he know P.W.1. and his brother. He did not
know anything about the occurrence. He was playing play
cards in Sivathanu Kalyana Mandapam. At about 1 O’Clock
then he went to the bed. Hence he did not saw the
occurrence. He did not speaks about the prosecution case.
Hence the prosecution has declared as a hostile witness.
7. P.W.3. is Suyambu, who is deposed in his evidence
that he know the accused as well as the deceased, P.W.1. and
P.W.2. He deposed in his evidence that at the time of
occurrence there is no light in Kalyana Mandapam. At the
time he heard a noise, some persons were murdered the
Rajan. Thereafter the said Rajan was brought to the Hospital .
He did not speaks about the prosecution case.
8. P.W.4 is Ravi Sankar, who deposed in his evidence
that on 02.06.2009 at about 8’O Clock P.W.1. and his friends
were playing cards in Kalyana mandapam. Subsequently he
did not speaks about the prosecution case.
6
9. P.W.5 is Anandha Prabhu, who deposed in his
evidence that on that alleged occurrence day he was playing
cards along with his friends. At the time the current was
failure. The deceased Rajan was fell down, thereafter he was
brought to the hospital for treatment. He did not speaks
about to the prosecution case.
10. P.W.6. is Bencikar, is also not speaks about the
prosecution case. He did not know anything about the
occurrence.
11. P.W.7. Robert is brother of the deceased. On
02.06.2009 at about 2.30 hours his one of the brother David
who is P.W.1. was called him for hiring the auto for the
purpose to admit the hospital of deceased Rajan. Thereafter
the doctor was examined his brother Rajan and declared that
he was dead. Then he is instructed his brother to given the
complaint about the occurrence.
12. P.W.8. is Ramachandran, who deposed in his
evidence that he was working as a Sweeper in Kalyana
Mandapam. He did not supported to the prosecution case.
Hence the prosecution has declared pw2 to pw6 and pw8 are
declared as hostile witnesses.
13. P.W.9. Doctor Ananthi. she was deposed in her
evidence that on 03.06.2009 at about early morning 3.30
hours, she was on duty in hospital , at the time the deceased
Rajan was brought by his brother David, she was examined
7
the said Rajan and declared as dead. Hence she has given
intimation to the police. The death intimation letter is marked
as Ext.P.2. The Accident register is marked as Ext.P.3.
14. P.W.10. Doctor R. Rajesh, he has deposed in his
evidence that now he was working as an Assistant Professor in
Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital. On
03.06.2009 when he was on duty as a doctor, at about early
morning 2’O Clock he has received intimation from the
Vadasery Police Station along with the deceased Rajan's dead
body which related to Crime No. 390/2009 for offence u/s.
302 of IPC. for purpose to conducted the postmortem. On
receipt of the requisition letter, at about 3.30 hours he had
conducted the postmortem and found the following external
and internal injuries which is as follows:
1.Horizontal punctured incised wound seen over the right
side of neck measuring 2 ¾ x ½ cm x wind pipe deep (7 cm)
O/E It has punctured the underlying muscles, carotid vessels
and entered into the wind pipe. It is directed downwards and
towards the left. One end of the wound is sharp and the other
end is blend. The wound is seen 3 c.ms below the lower end of
right ear. No other external injuries.
Internal Injuries :-
Heard : Normal coronaries patent.
Lungs : Normal C/S pale.
Trachea : Filled with blood clot and rice particles.
8
Hyoid bone : Intact
Stomach : 150 gms of cooked rice particles mixed with
altered blood. Nil specific smell. Mucosa pale. Liver, Spleen &
Kidneys Normal C/S pale. Small intestine 30 ml of altered
blood. Nil specific smell. Mucosa pale. Bladder Empty,Brain
: Normal C/S pale.Viscera : Preserved
Further he deposed in his evidence that the death was
happened prior to six to 24 hours prior to his autopsy. The
requisition letter for conducted the postmortem was marked
as Ext.P.4. The postmortem certificate was marked as Ext.P.5.
He had given final opinion after received the chemical analysis,
the death would be caused due to neck injury. The final
opinion was marked as Ext.P.6.
15. P.W.11. Subramaniyan who deposed in his evidence
that on 03.06.2009 he heard information about the
occurrence. After hearing information he has rushed to the
occurrence place. At the time the Inspector of Police came to
the occurrence place and inspected the occurrence place and
prepared observation mahazar in presence of him. He was
attested in that document. One Sundararaj is also attested
as witness in that document. The observation mahazar was
marked as Ext.p.7.
16. P.W.12.is Natarajan who deposed in his evidence
that on 16.06.2009 when he was working as a Village
Administrative Officer in Vadasery Village, at the time the
9
Inspector of Police, Vadasery has called him. After received
information he has rushed to the police station. At the time
the accused was present there. The police has examined the
accused. The accused has given confession statement. The
Inspector of police has reduced in writing of the accused
statement. During the time of given statement the accused
has informed that when he was brought to the hidden place of
knife, he will took the knife and other case properties. The
admitted portion of the confession statement was marked as
Ext.P.9. Based on admitted portion of the confession
statement, the accused was brought to Crown Street. When he
was went to the opposite side of the one plot which was
situated near by school, he has took the knife from under
neath of bushes. The Inspector of Police has seized the knife
through seizure mahazar in his presence. He was signed as a
witness in seizure mahazar which was marked as Ext.P.8.
knife was marked as M.O.1. At the time the Inspector of
Police, Vadasery has seized one carry bag which is also seized
through seizure mahazar which was marked as M.O.2.
17. P.W.13. Nagarajan who deposed in his evidence
that on that alleged occurrence day in and around of the
Kalyana Mandapam all street lights are burning.
18. P.W.14. Suyambu who deposed in his evidence that
on 03.06.2009 when he was working as a Head Constable in
Vadasery Police Station, on instruction from his higher
10
authorities at about 8.15 hours he had received case records
which related to Crime No. 390/2009 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After receipt of the case
records, then he went to the Judicial Magistrate court No. II,
Nagercoil and handed over the case records to the Magistrate
Court.
19. P.W.15. K.R. Sonamuthu who deposed in his
evidence that in 03.06.2009 at about 7.40 hours when he was
on duty as Sub Inspector of Police in Vadasery Police station
at the time one David, Son of Subbaiah come to the police
station. He had given the complaint. After receipt of the
complaint he has registered a case in Crime No. 390/2009
under section 302 of IPC. The registered First Information
Report is marked as Ext.P.10. Thereafter he sent to the First
Information Report, complaint and other related case papers
to the Judicial Magistrate Court and his higher authorities.
20. P.W.16. Jamal who deposed in his evidence that
now he was working as a Sub Inspector of Police in Tirunelveli
District. On 03.06.2009 at about 7.45 hours he has received
the case records which related to Crime No. 390/2009 under
Section 302 of IPC. After receipt of the case records on some
day at about 8.45 hours he has rushed to the occurrence
place and prepared observation mahazar. In presence of
witnesses Sundararaj and Subramaniyan. The observation
mahazar has already been marked as Ext.P.7. Then he has
11
prepared rough sketch. which was marked as Ext.P.11. Then
he has rushed to the Government Hospital at about 10'O
Clock. He has conducted inquest on dead body in presence of
witnesses and panchayatars. Then he has prepared inquest
report. which was marked as Ext.P.12. Then he has
examined witnesses David, Manikandan, Bencigar, Suyambu
and recorded their statements. Then he has sent to the
requisition letter to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil along
with deceased dead body through his head constable 236.
Then he has examined witnesses Ravisankar, Anantha
Prabhu, Robert, Ramachandran, Madaswamy, Pichandi then
he has recorded their statements. Then he has hearing
information about that the the said accused was surrendered
before the Judicial Magistrate court No. IV, Madurai. On
15.06.2009 the said accused was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate court No. II, Nagercoil. Then he had given the
requisition letter to take the accused in police custody, the
court has granted order to the police, the police has taken the
accused in his custody, he was examined by the police in his
custody in 3 days. After examined the accused in police
custody on 15.06.2009 he has produced the accused before
the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Nagercoil. On 16.06.2009
morning 8.15 hours he was examined accused, at the time the
accused was voluntarily gave statement in presence of
witnesses. Based on the admitted portion of the confession
12
statement, the accused brought to the Hindu Vidyalaya School
at Vathiyarvilai. On the opposite side of the above said school
the accused has took the knife from underneath of the bushes.
Then he has seized the above said knife in presence of the
same witnesses through sizer mahazar. Then he has examined
Head constable Jayachandran, suyambu and Sub Inspector of
Police, Sonamuthu and recorded their statements. Then he
has examined doctor Rajesh and recorded his statement.
During the time of recording doctor's statement he has
obtained postmortem certificate. Then he has prepared rough
sketch. Then he had given the requisition letter to the Judicial
Magistrate Court to send to the case properties to the chemical
analysis. Office letter is marked as Ex.P.14. After chemical
analysis the forensic department has sent to the chemical
report which is marked as Ext.P.15. The serology report is
also sent by the forensic department, which was marked as
Ext.P.16. Then after conducting the postmortem,the head
constable was recovered shirt and Lungi from dead body.
which was marked as M.O.3 and M.O.4. P.W.1's shirt was
marked as M.O.5. Then he has completed his investigation
and filed charge sheet against accused for the offence u/s 302
of IPC.
21. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the
accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
about the incriminating circumstances found against the
13
accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused
denied their involvement in the commission of crime and he
has seeking permission to examine witness on his side.
22. D.W.1. Rajkumar who deposed in his evidence that
on 03.06.2009 the marriage was happened in Sivathanu
Kalyana Mandapam. On 02.06.2009 evening 6 to 8'O Clock
another one reception was happened in his house. At the time
his family members are attend there along with Benci,
Suyambu, Auto driver Manikandan, Suresh, Rajkumar and
other members. He had given the amount of Rs. 1,500/- to
conduct the feast. Then the above said all friends are playing
play cards up to 9'O Clock. Thereafter he went to his house.
The cook called on the same day at about 12'O Clock, his
father received the information through phone about to the
occurrence. On morning 4.30 hours his father went to the
Kalyana Mandapam. On that day the said deceased Rajan was
not attend the marriage function. The accused was present
there. At about 4 to 5'O Clock early morning he was having
knowledge about the occurrence.
23. Based on the respective contentions raised in the
prosecution witnesses, the following point is raised for the
final determination.
Whether the prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts against the accused through oral
and documentary evidence for the offence u/s 302 of IPC ?
14
24. Point for determination :-
The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that
the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable
doubts against accused. Further the learned Public
Prosecutor has argued that in the present case in order to
prove the prosecution case totally 16 witnesses were
examined. Out of 16 witnesses P.W.1. is an eye witness in
this case. P.W.1. has deposed in his evidence cogently about
the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1. is sufficient to convict
the accused. P.W.2. to P.W.6 and P.W.8.are not supported to
the prosecution case. The prosecution has declared there as
hostile witnesses and cross examined. During the time of
occurrence, the P.W.2. to P.W.6 and P.W.8. have admitted
their evidence regarding that an alleged occurrence date
03.06.2009 at 1.15 hours midnight the deceased pw1 and
P.W.2. to P.W.8. are playing cards in Sivathanu Kalyana
Mandapam which is situated at Vathiyarvilai, Nagercoil.
During the time of playing cards due to previous enmity the
accused Manikandan has enter into the Sivathanu
Kalyanamandapam and standing with knife on behind the
deceased Rajan. Further the learned counsel for the public
prosecutor has contented that the accused has stabbed the
deceased on his neck. Therefore the evidence of pw1 is
establish that the evidence of pw1 is sufficient to convict the
15
accused. The learned counsel for the accused ha further
contented that even the P.W.2 to P.W.8. Are turned hostile on
his cross examination, some part of their evidence is to taken
in to consideration to convict the accused. Further he has
contended that the medical witness is also clearly established
that the death would be caused due to one punctured stab
injury of the deceased neck. Due to injury over bleeding of
blood from his body and caused the death. The medical
evidence is corroborated to the evidence of P.W.1. Further the
learned Public Prosecutor has contended that 27 recovery is
also established by the prosecution case through oral and
documentary evidence. In this regard the evidence of P.W.12
the Village Administrative Officer has clearly deposed in his
evidence the accused taking police custody by the
investigation officer in presence of pw12 the accused has
examined by the I.O. Based on the admitted portion of the
confession statement the accused took to the opposite side of
the Hindu Vidyalaya School. He was took the knife from the
underneath of the bushes. Therefore the 27 recovery is
corroborated to the prosecution case. The learned Public
Prosecutor further has submitted that the learned counsel for
the accused contentions all are not sustainable one regarding
that immediately after the occurrence P.W.1 informed neither
the police nor his relatives about the occurrence. The nature
and conduct of the P.W.1 is created doubt about to the
16
prosecution case. Further the learned counsel for the accused
contention is also not sustainable one regarding that the
presence of P.W.1. Is in occurrence place is doubtful. The
above said aspect was not considered by this court because
immediately after the occurrence normally a person was trying
to save the life. At the time normally a person was not
thinking to given the complaint and informed to the
neighbours. The nature and conduct is originally any ordinary
prudent man immediately after the occurrence to trying to
save the injured life. Therefore the learned counsel for the
accused contention is not sustainable one. Because of
immediately after the occurrence P.W.1. has brought to his
brother to the Government Hospital at 3.15 hours . The
doctor is clearly established that the deceased was brought to
the hospital by the P.W.1. If really the P.W.1. is not present
there as how to possible the P.W.1. brought to the hospital to
the deceased immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the
presence of P.W.1. Is in occurrence place is doubtful theory is
also not sustainable one. Further the learned Public
Prosecutor has contended that the investigation officer is also
clearly examined the witnesses. The chemical analysis report
is also supported to the prosecution case. Under above all
circumstances are considered by this court and considered
and appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1. and documentary
evidence the accused is convicted according to law.
17
25. On the other hand the learned counsel for the
accused has elaborately argued about that the prosecution
has miserably failed to established the case beyond reasonable
doubts. On the alleged occurrence day the learned counsel for
the accused has raised his objection in his argument as well
written argument notes, P.W.1. presence is in occurrence
place is doubtful. For support of the above said theory the
learned counsel for the accused has quoted the evidence of
P.W.1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted
that the nature and conduct is also created doubt about that
the pw1 in presence of the occurrence place. Further he has
contented that the nature and conduct is clearly established
that the P.W.1. is not present in occurrence place during the
time of occurrence. Further his contention is that if really the
P.W.1 is present in the occurrence place at the time of
occurrence immediately after the occurrence he was informed
to his father or brothers. But in the present case the
occurrence was happened on 03.06.2009 at about 1.10
hours. Subsequently he was rushed to his brother's house
and he was taken auto and go to the occurrence place and
brought to the deceased to the government hospital. In
between time the accused did not informed to his brothers and
hi father. If really the P.W.1. is present in occurrence place
definitely to informed to his father after the occurrence.
Further he has created another one doubt is that Vadasery
18
Police Station is able to reached within two minutes from the
occurrence place. As to why the accused was not immediately
go to the police station and give the complaint. This aspect is
also created doubt about the presence of P.W.1. in
occurrence place. The third doubt raised by the learned
counsel for the accused in his argument as well as in his
argument notes regarding that P.W.1. did not informed to the
prior occurrence in between the accused and the deceased. As
per prosecution case prior to this occurrence, some quarrel
was happened on 02.06.2009 at about 8'O Clock. If really at
the time the accused was threatened to the deceased he was
killed him, definitely after the occurrence the P.W.1. was not
informed to anybody nor given complaint before the Police
Station. In the present case the P.W.1. did not disclosed up
to 3.15 hours. Therefore the presence of P.W.1. and conduct
and nature of the evidence of P.W.1. has created doubt about
that the P.W.1. is present in the occurrence place at the time
of occurrence. In the above said aspect was not established by
the prosecution through the oral and documentary evidence.
In the absence of the above said aspect is fatal to the
prosecution case. Hence the benefit of doubt is to be given to
the accused and acquitted from the charge.
26. Further the learned counsel for the accused has
raised another one contention regarding that the 27 recovery
is also not established by the prosecution side through proper
19
oral and documentary evidence. Therefore it is fatal to the
prosecution case. In the present facts of the case after five
days of the occurrence , the accused was examined in police
custody in the presence of Village Administrative Officer. The
learned counsel for the accused has attacked the manner of
recording the admitted portion of the confession statement. If
the accused was in police custody in the presence of Village
Administrative Officer or Tahsildar the accused statement is
inadmissible evidence. It is hit by section 26 of Evidence Act.
Further he has contended that the recovery of case property
M.O.1. Knife was recovered from the open place. The property
was seized by the police in open place that was many persons
were passed through that place. In that circumstances the
recovery of property is also not a genuine one. Therefore the
confession statement is also not supported to the prosecution
case and 27 recovery is also not supported to the prosecution
case. In this aspect is also the accused is entitled to acquittal
from the charge. Further the learned counsel for the accused
has contended that the Investigation Officer has committed
many omissions and commissions during the time of
investigation. He has contended that the occurrence was
happened in Kalyana Mandapam. As per prosecution case at
the time of occurrence more than 20 persons are in and
around the occurrence place. But the Investigation Officer has
not chose any independent witness cited as to why to delay to
20
lodging the First Information Report. It is also fatal to the
prosecution case. Further the learned counsel for the accused
has contended that in the present case P.W.1. is an interested
witness and his witness is not believable one. In such
circumstances the sole eye witness alone is not sufficient to
prove the prosecution case. Further the learned counsel for
the accused has contended that at the time of trial when the
P.W.1. was entered into the witness box, P.W.1. did not
disclosed to identify the weapon in the open court. The
prosecution has not taken any steps to identify the weapon in
open court by the P.W.1. If really P.W.1. is present in the
occurrence place, it is definitely P.W.1. was identified the
weapon before this court. Furthermore the seizure Mahazar is
also not supported to the prosecution case. The above said all
aspects are considered by this court and . The accused is
entitled to get benefit of doubt, and he was entitled to
acquittal from the charge.
27. After taking into consideration of the both side
learned cousel arguments and on perusal of oral and
documentary evidence the learned counsel for the accused
counsel contention is not sustainable one. The learned
counsel for the accused contention is that the prosecution is
failed to proved through oral and documentary evidence
regarding that the accused is involved in occurrence place.
Further his contention is that the pw1 present is in
21
occurrence place is doubtable. Further he has contented that
the nature and conduct of pw1 is created the doubt regarding
that the pw1 is presence is in occurrence place is doubtable.
Regarding this aspect the learned counsel has argued that, at
the time of occurrence the pw1 is present in occurrence place
along with his brother. If really the occurrence was happened
in presence of him immediately after the occurrence, he has
informed the occurrence to his parents and his friends.
Further as per pw1 evidence, within few minutes reached to
Vadasery police station from the occurrence place. But he did
not given any compliant immediately after the occurrence.
Therefore the pw1 conduct is created doubt about the
occurrence. Further pw1 presence is in occurrence place is
doubtable. Hence it is unsafe the court is convict the accused
based on the evidence of pw1. Hence the accused is acquitted
from the charge. In this regard the learned counsel for the
accused is relied on reported case reported in
2006 (2) C.T.C. 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Balakrishnan and Others .. Appellants
/Vs./
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the
Inspector of Police.
Oomangalam Police Station,
22
Virdhachalam Taluk. .. Respondents
Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3 & 8 – Criminal Trial
– Appreciation of evidence – Interested witness – Conduct of
sole eye witness (PW-1) who is brother of deceased – Evidence
of PW-1 that on seeing deceased being attacked he ran away
and his himself – He did not inform his father about incident
on reaching home – But enquired as to whether deceased
returned – Normal tendency of any person on seeing his
brother being attacked would be to go and inform his family s
soon as possible – But action of PW-1 is not what one would
expect of any normal person – It is unsafe to act of evidence of
PW-1.
For the same aspect the learned counsel for the accused has
relied on another one reported case reported in
2004 CRI.L.J. 2874
(SUPREME COURT)
Shankarlal .. Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan .. Respondent
Penal code (45 of 1860), S.300 – Murder – Evidence
of solitary eye-witness – Reliability – Said witness was chance
witness whose presence at spot of incident was highly doubtful
– His conduct of not informing anybody about the incident
though persons were available on his way back until he went
23
to village square appearing unnatural – In examination inchief
he stating that he saw only one assault on deceased
while in cross-examination, he stating that he saw accused
attacking deceased twice and both injuries were caused in his
presence – his evidence not reliable – Unexplained delay in
filing complaint – No other material to be base conviction –
Accused entitled to benefit of doubt
The above said two case laws are not applicable in the
present facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the evidence of P.W.1. is genuine his version Is differ
from the chief in examination to his cross examination, at the
time the presence of witness is in occurrence place is doubtful.
This court on perusal of the case records it found that the
learned counsel for the accused contention is not sustainable
one. Regarding this aspect this court has gone through the
case records it found that on 02.06.2009 at about 8.00 P.M.
the first occurrence was happened. Subsequently on
03.06.2009 at about 1.15 hours the deceased, pw1 and others
were playing cards in Kalyana mandapam. Due to previous
enmity, the accused came there. In presence of him the
accused has stabbed deceased on his neck. This court's
opinion is that once a grievous crime was happened in
presence of a man and having injury, at the time the human
nature of normal person's thinking is that first steps to be
taken to save the injured person's life. Thereafter only he was
24
thinking to steps to taken criminal action against the accused.
In the present case, in presence of P.W.1. the occurrence was
happened . His own brother was received fatal injuries. Hence
he was immediately go to the brother's house and taken his
own tempo and brought to the deceased to the government
hospital. Further the Accident Report is corroborated to the
evidence of P.W.1. Thereafter he was informed to his parents
and his relatives. In such circumstances even the P.W.1. did
not informed to his parents or his relatives and Police Station
about to the occurrence, it is alone not sufficient to come to
the conclusion that the prosecution case is fatal. Further in
the present case the P.W.1. has clearly established that in his
cross examination as to why he was not given to the complaint
before the police station nor informed to his parents and his
relatives. The explanation given by the P.W.1. is acceptable
one. In such circumstances the above said two case laws are
not applicable in the present facts of the case.
28. Further this court has gone through the evidence of
P.W.1. it is clearly corroborated to the medical evidence about
to the injury. Further the prosecution evidence is established
that Section 27 Recovery through oral and documentary
evidence. The 27 recovery is corroborated to the pw1 evidence.
29. Further this court has gone through the medical
analysis report it is also found that some human blood was
found in P.W.1's shirt M.O.6. These all aspects are
25
considered by this court and come to the conclusion that the
learned counsel for the accused contention is not accepted one
regarding that the conduct of P.W.1. is fatal to the
prosecution case. Therefore the learned counsel for the
accused contention is not sustainable one.
30. Further As per the prosecution case more then 20
or 30 persons are available in and around the alleged
occurrence place. The Investigation Officer has not chosen to
any independent witnesses in and around to the occurrence
place. The learned counsel for the accused contention is that
once the P.W.1. evidence is created doubt about to his
presence in occurrence place, the P.W.1. evidence cannot be
taken into account, without examined any independent
evidence those are available in and around the occurrence
place. In the present case the investigation officer has not
choose to examined any independent witness. Hence the
prosecution case is fatal. In this regard the learned counsel for
the accused has relied on one reported case reported in
2006 (2) C.T.C. 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Balakrishnan and Orhers .. Appellants
/Vs./
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the
Inspector of Police.
Oomangalam Police Station,
26
Virdhachalam Taluk. .. Respondents
Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3 & 8 – Criminal Trial
– Appreciation of evidence – Interested witness – Conduct of
sole eye witness (PW-1) who is brother of deceased – Evidence
of PW-1 that on seeing deceased being attacked he ran away
and his himself – He did not inform his father about incident
on reaching home – But enquired as to whether deceased
returned – Normal tendency of any person on seeing his
brother being attacked would be to go and inform his family s
soon as possible – But action of PW-1 is not what one would
expect of any normal person – It is unsafe to act of evidence of
PW-1.
For the same aspect the learned counsel for the
accused has relied on another one reported case reported in
2004 CRI.L.J. 2874
(SUPREME COURT)
Shankarlal .. Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan .. Respondent
Penal code (45 of 1860), S.300 – Murder – Evidence
of solitary eye-witness – Reliability – Said witness was chance
witness whose presence at spot of incident was highly
doubtful – His conduct of not informing anybody about the
incident though persons were available on his way back until
27
he went to village square appearing unnatural – In
examination in-chief he stating that he saw only one assault
on deceased while in cross-examination, he stating that he
saw accused attacking deceased twice and both injuries were
caused in his presence – his evidence not reliable –
Unexplained delay in filing complaint – No other material to be
base conviction – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.
Hence the above said two case laws are not
applicable to the present facts of the case. In the present
case the prosecution has to prove their case totally 16
witnesses were examined. Out of 16 witnesses P.W.1. is an
eye witness. The prosecution case is that at time of
occurrence the above said witness was present in that
occurrence place and playing cards along with deceased . But
unfortunately the P.W.2. to P.W.6 and pw8 are entered into
the witness box at that time they have did not speaks about to
the prosecution case. On going through the case records the
prosecution has declared the above said witnesses as hostile
witnesses and cross examined by the prosecution side. All
witnesses are admitted in his cross examination,regarding that
they have playing cards in occurrence place at the time of
occurrence place and one or two witnesses are admitted that
the said accused was close friends to them. This court's
opinion is that when the accused was close friends to them
how to expect from them they have speaks about the
28
occurrence. Further this court has gone through the cross
examination of the prosecution the hostile witnesses did not
denied in their cross examination about that the occurrence
was happened in Sivathanu Kalyana Mandapam. The
probabilities of the witnesses are considered by this court and
come to the conclusion that the hostile witnesses P.W.2. to
P.W.6 and pw8. are close friends of the deceased. In such
circumstance it is not expect from their evidence about the
particulars of the occurrence. Therefore the above said two
case laws contentions are not applicable in the present facts of
the case.
31. Further in the present facts of the case, this court
has gone through the evidence of P.W.1. It found that he was
given explanation as to why he was not given the complaint
even to reach the police station within two minutes from the
occurrence place, The P.W.1. Has deposed in his evidence that
the injured person is his brother. In presence of him, the
accused has stabbed the injured on his brother's neck.
Therefore normally a person was thinking normal tendency of
any person to see his brother attacked and having injury,
definitely he was to save his life. The above said explanation
was given to the P.W.1. in his chief examination. Regarding
this aspect this court relied some portion of the evidence of
P.W.1. in his cross examination is which is as follows :-
29
vd; jk;gpia M!;gj;jphpf;F bfhz;L bry;yntz;Lk; vd;W
brhy;ytpy;iy/ vd; jk;gpia fhg;ghw;wntz;Lbkd;W epidj;njd;/ kw;w
egh;fsplk; jfty; brhy;y brhy;ytpy;iy.
The above said explanation is accepted by this court and
come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1. is
acceptable evidence.
32. Further the learned counsel for the accused
contention is that P.W.1. is the own brother of the deceased.
His witness is interested witness. Hence this evidence cannot
be taken into account to convict the accused. The above said
accused contention is not sustainable one. When P.W.1.
evidence is cogent and reliable one. In such circumstances
even the witness is interested and close relative evidence it is
alone not sufficient to discarded the prosecution case. The
above said principle was laid in reported case.
2008 SAR (Criminal) 61
Supreme Court
D. Sailu .. Appellant
/Versus/
State of Andhra Pradesh .. Respondent
C. Witness – Relative Witness – Relationship is not a
factor to affect credibility of a witness – It is more often than
not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person.
30
Therefore the learned counsel for the accused contention is
not sustainable one.
33. Further the learned counsel for the accused another
one contention is that except P.W.1. all other witnesses are did
not supported to the prosecution case. Further all other
witnesses are not deposed in their evidence at the time of the
occurrence the accused as well as P.W.1. is present in the
occurrence place. To corroborate to the above said contention
the accused was examined one Rajkumar as D.W.1. On going
through the evidence of D.W.1. and the evidence of P.W.2. to
P.W.6 and pw8 it found that those witnesses are friends and
they have residing in same area. In such circumstances it is
not expected from the P.W.2. to P.W.6, pw8. and D.W.1they
have speaks about prosecution case. This court is come to the
conclusion that the prosecution case is not fatal to non
examination of independent witness.
34. Further the learned counsel for the accused another
one contention is that the admitted portion of the confession
statement and 27 recovery are cannot be taken into account
to convict the accused. For support of his contention he has
argued that after given the alleged confession statement, the
accused was brought to the opposite side of the Hindu
Vidyalaya School. At the time he was identified the weapon
and took the weapon and handed over to the police. The
learned counsel for the accused contention is that the knife
31
taken from the open place. It easily access any person, further
he has contended that after 15 days of the occurrence, the
above said weapon was recovered from the open place. In
such circumstances the 27 recovery is cannot be taken into
account. This aspect is also not acceptable one. In this
regard this court has gone through the case records it found
that to prove the 27 recovery one of the seizure mahazar
witness was examined by the police as P.W. 12. On going
through the evidence of P.W.2. it show that he was an attested
witness in seizure mahazar. This evidence is established that
in presence of him the accused was took the knife from the
hidden place of the bushes which was situated on north west
corner of the one plot, which was situated on opposite side of
the Hindu Vidyalaya School. The evidence of P.W.12 is
corroborated to the contention of Ext.P.9. admissible portion
of the confession statement. This court's opinion is that once
the police was secured the weapon from the hidden place of
the accused, it is admissible evidence. Therefore the learned
counsel for the accused contention is not sustainable one. In
this regard this court relied on the evidence of P.W.12. is as
follows:
10/15kzpf;F me;j fput[z; bjUtpYs;s gs;spf;F vjpnua[s;s
m!;jpthuk; nghlg;gl;Ls;s kidapYs;s gpshl;Lf;F brdnwhk;/ m';F
tlnkw;F K:iyapy; ,Ue;j bro g[jUf;Fs;ns ,Ue;J bts;is epw
gpsh!;of; nfhp ngf;fpypUe;J kiwj;J itj;jpUe;j Rkhh; 12/1-2 br/kP
32
mstpyhd btl;L ghfKs;s fj;jpia vjphp vLj;J M$h; bra;a
Ma;thsh;mij mj;jhl;rpapy; ifg;gw;wpdhh;/ ''
The above said evidence of P.W.12. is clearly
established that the weapon was recovered by the police from
the hidden place. Therefore the recovery of property
is clearly established by the prosecution case through
oral and documentary evidence. Hence the learned counsel
for the accused contention is not sustainable one.
35. Further the learned counsel for the accused another
one contention is that the accused was taken on police
custody and examined him. The learned counsel for the
accused contention is that when the the accused was
examined by the police during the time of judicial custody,
his statement was recorded only in presence of judicial
officer. In this case the accused has examined in presence
of VAO. It is hit by sec.26 of the evidence act. It is fatal
to the prosecution case. The said evidence cannot be
relied to convict the accused. Regarding this aspect the
learned counsel for the accused has relied on reported case
reported in
(2011) 4 M.L.J. (Crl.) 428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE
AT MADRAS
Kalam @ Abdul Kalam .. Appellants
33
Vs.
Inspector of Police, Madipakkam
Police Station, Chengalpattu
District. .. Respondent.
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sections 304(ii) and 201
read with 34 – Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872),Sections 25, 26
and 114(b) – Conviction and sentence – Appeal – confession of
accused to police in presence of Tahsildar not admissible in
evidence – Confession of accused while in police custody to be
recorded by Judicial Magistrate to be made admissible –
Record of confession of accused by Executive Magistrate
inadmissible - Confession hit by Sections 25 and 26 –
Evidences of accomplices not trustworthy unless corroborated
– Evidence of accomplices not inspiring confidence of Court –
Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled
for acquittal.
The above said case law is not applicable in the present
facts of the case. On going through the case records it found
that the accused was not informed before the court when he
was recorded the statement, the police has made coercion,
undue influence and recorded his statement. When the
accused was not discloses the above said aspect. This court's
opinion is that the accused confession statement is taken into
account and to convict the accused is not against in law.
34
Furthermore on going through the case records it found that
during the Section 313(1)(b) question itself the accused did not
informed, that the police was taken into police custody and at
the time of recorded his statement the police was made
coercion and undue influence. The above said aspect was
considered by this court and come to the conclusion that even
the statement was recorded in the presence of Tahsildar in
police custody, unless or otherwise coercion and undue
influence the statement was recorded and the material object
was corroborated to the medical analysis report it is
admissible one. The above said dictum is relied one reported
case reported in
2007 S.A.R. (Crl.) Page 486
Supreme Court
Ramkrushna .. Appellant
/Versus/
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Discovery of fact – Admissibility of – Confession
leading to recovery of the handle of knife which is said to have
been used for causing murder – Chemical Analyst's report
establishes that human blood was found on the knife –
Discovery the said fact is admissible u/sec. 27 of the Act.
Therefore the above said case law is not applicable
in the present facts of the case.
35
36. The learned counsel for the accused another one
contention is that the P.W.1. is not identified the weapon in
the open court. It is fatal to the prosecution case. In the
present case P.W.1. definitely informed to this court he did not
able to identify the weapon, which was produced by this court
by the prosecution side and marked as M.O.1. Hence the
prosecution case is fatal. For support of his contention the
learned counsel for the accused has relied on one reported
case reported in
[2012 (1) T.N.L.R. 168 (Mad)]
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Panjali @ Savaridoss and others
.. Appellants
Versus
State .. Respondent
(A) Indian Evience Act, 1872 – section 3 Eye-witness –
Held, where there is an eye-witness, one of the foremost duties
of the prosecutor would be to lead the eye- witness to identify
the weapon used in the crime, if the said witness is able to do
so.
The above said case law is not applicable in the
present facts of the case. In this regard the learned Public
Prosecutor has argued that the P.W.1. is not able to identify
the weapon without the handle bar of the knife. Therefore this
aspect is only not sufficient to acquitted the accused. The
36
learned Public Prosecutor's contention is acceptable one. In
the present facts of the case on going through the case
records, except this aspect, the all other aspects are 27
recovery, chemical report and admitted portion of the
confession statement and medical evidence are corroborated
each other regarding that the said weapon is involved in this
crime. The M.O.1 was used by the accused in the commission
of crime. In this aspect even though the P.W.1. is not
identified the weapon before this court was not alone to fatal
to the prosecution case. Therefore the above said case law is
not applicable.
37. Further the learned counsel for the accused another
one contention is that when the Investigation Officer examined
the postmortem doctor, the Investigation Officer has not
produced the weapon before the doctor and recorded his
statement. Furthermore the doctor has not identified the
weapon before the court. Hence it is also fatal to the
prosecution case. For support of his contention the learned
counsel for the accused has relied on one reported case
reported in
1979 CRI.L.J. 236
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
(LUCKNOW BENCH)
Jagdeo Singh and others .. Appellants
Vs.
37
State .. Respondent
(A) Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 294 – Admission of
document without formal proof – Postmortem examination
report – Whether can be exhibited as evidence without the
doctor's testimony in court (Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 157
& 32).
The above said case law is not applicable in the present
facts of the case. In the present facts of the case the doctor
has clearly deposed in his evidence that the said death would
be caused due to some injuries which was caused in such type
of weapons. The above said evidence is clearly established
that the doctor's opinion is that the death would be caused
due to such type of weapon attacked by the accused with this
weapon. Therefore the above said case law is not applicable
in the present facts of the case. Furthermore in the present
case P.W.1. was clearly deposed in his case regarding that the
accused was assaulted the deceased with knife. The said knife
was identified by the accused and in presence of the P.W.12.
the accused was took over the hidden place. When 27
recovery and confession statement is corroborated to the
prosecution evidence and the injuries also corroborated to the
weapon. In such circumstances the minor discrepancies are
not fatal to the prosecution case. Further this court's opinion
is that during the time of investigation, some omissions and
38
commissions committed by the Investigation Officer, it is not
fatal to the prosecution case.
38. Further the learned counsel for the accused has
attacked the prosecution case for reason stated that P.W.1.
had given the complaint in inordinate delay. It is fatal to the
prosecution case. In this regard the learned Public Prosecutor
has objected the accused contention immediately after the
occurrence the normal person was to save the injured person's
life, thereafter only he was thinking about to the penal action
against the culprits. In the present case also the deceased
was own brother of the P.W.1. In the presence of the P.W.1.
was having fatal injuries and laid on ground with blood hold.
In such circumstances the normal person was to save the life
thereafter only he was given the penal action against the
accused. In the present case also the same incident was
happened. On going through the evidence of P.W.1. and on
going through the case records it found that immediately after
the occurrence he was called the other persons. Any one did
not come forward to help him. Subsequently he was go to the
brother's house and brought to the tempo van. Then only he
was taken to the deceased from the occurrence place and to
admitted in the hospital. During the time of admitted in the
hospital the doctor has examined the injured person Rajan
and declared as he was dead. Thereafter he came to the Police
station and given the complaint. The above said incidents are
39
happened after 1.15 hours to 3.30 hours. Further this court
opinion is that no doubt the complaint was registered only on
7.45 A.M. on 03.06.2009. The occurrence was happened at
about 1.15 hours. More than six hours later delay to given the
complaint. This court opinion is that immediately after the
death P.W.1. has taken some steps and informed to his
relatives and other persons about to the incidents and
thereafter he was decided to given the complaint. A Normal
person was doing in such type of practice was normally a
person was done in such type of occurrence was happened.
Therefore the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal to the
prosecution case. Further P.W.1. is clearly established in his
evidence about to the occurrence. Therefore P.W.1. evidence is
cogent and reliable one. In such circumstances the
explanation given to the prosecution is accepted by this court.
Therefore the delay in lodging the complaint at any way
affected the prosecution case. The above said dictum is laid in
2007 S.A.R. (Crl.) Page 350 The above said case law is
applicable in the present facts of the case. In the above said
case law the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when
P.W.1. evidence is cogently reliable one and trustworthy, the
prosecution has given the proper explanation as to why he was
given the delay to lodging the complaint, this delay in lodging
the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case. In the
present facts of the case on going through the evidence of
40
P.W.1. this court has already quoted the evidence of P.W.1. as
to why the delay to given the complaint. Therefore the learned
counsel for the accused contention is not sustainable one.
39. Further on going through the case records it found
that the doctor evidence is corroborated to the prosecution
case. The doctor has clearly deposed in his evidence the above
said injuries were happened. Further he was given the final
opinion which was marked as Ext.P.6. It found that the death
would be caused due to that injuries. Therefore the doctor's
evidence is also corroborated to the prosecution case. Further
the another one witness Dr. Ananthi who is given the
intimation memo. At the time of duty on 03.06.2009 when
the P.W.1. has brought to the deceased. The above said
evidence is clearly established that the P.W.1. is presence in
the occurrence place and he was brought to the deceased with
injuries. Therefore the above said evidence is also clearly
established that the above said aspects. Further on going
through the other official witnesses it found that the above
said Inspector of Police has properly inspected the case and
filed the charge sheet against the accused. In respect of the
documentary evidence the Ext.P.1. first information statement
is corroborated to the P.W.1. evidence. There is no fatal found
in Ext.P.1. The death intimation is also established that the
alleged occurrence day the above said death was caused due
to commission of crime. Further the Ext.P.10. First
41
Information Report is also corroborated to the evidence of
P.W.1. and doctor's evidence in respect of that the
presumption, the accused was presence in the occurrence
place due to such crime was happened and due to such
occurrence the deceased was admitted in the hospital and
declared as dead.
40. Further the learned counsel for the another one
contention is that the prosecution has not established motive
theory. In the present fact of the case the the motive attributed
by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused. The
learned counsel for the accused contention is not sustainable
one. In the present case, the pw1 is an eye witness. When the
eye witness deposed in his evidence cogently and his evidence
is reliable one motive theory cannot to be taken in to the
account when the accused was convict for the offence. The
above said dictum is reported through case law. Further
Section 134 of the Evidence Act sole eye witness is sufficient to
convict the accused once the evidence is accepted by the court
regarding that the evidence is cogently trustworthy and
reliable one. Hence the accused contention is not sustainable
one regarding that non examination of independent witness is
fatal to the prosecution case.
41. Further this court has gone through the case
records it found that the observation witnesses and
Ext.P.7.Observation Mahazar is corroborated to each other.
42
Therefore this evidence is also supported to the prosecution
case. The Ext.P.8. is another one seizure mahazar which
seized the recovery of M.O.1. and 2 is also supported to the
prosecution case. This court has discussed elaborately the
F.I.R. and admissible portion of the confession statement are
also corroborated to the prosecution case. Ext.P.11. the rough
sketch is established the scene of occurrence. The Ext.P.14.
to P.16. are chemical reports it is also supported to the
prosecution case about that some human blood was found in
the deceased shirt and P.W.1's shirt and also knife. Therefore
the above said documents are also corroborated to the
prosecution case. Under above all circumstances are
considered by this court and come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved his case through beyond reasonable
doubts. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the
accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC.
42. In respect of the charge against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, All the entire
records reveals that prior to this occurrence on 02.06.2009
some quarrel was happened in between the accused and the
deceased. For continuation of the 1st occurrence a fateful day
on 03.06.2009 at 1.15 hours, the deceased was playing cards
in Sivathanu Kalyana Mandapam which occurrence place in
this case at the time the accused enter in to the Kalyana
43
Mandapam with knife and assaulted the deceased. The above
said aspect was established by the prosecution case through
evidence of pw1 and documentary evidence. On going through
the entire case records it found that there is no sudden
provocation and altercation in between the deceased and the
accused, the accused was assaulted the deceased and the
death would be caused. Further this court opinion is that the
accused is well known about that normally a person was
stabbed by the knife on the neck portion the human body, it
will possible that the death would be caused. Even well
knowing the above said aspect the accused was assaulted the
deceased on his neck. The attitude of the accused is
established that prior to the occurrence some quarrel was
happened in between the deceased and the accused, he is
enter into the Kalyana Mandapam and assaulted with an
intention of cause the murder. The attitude of the accused is
comes under the four corners of 300 IPC. Under the above
circumstances this court comes to the conclusion that the
accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 302 of IPC.
43.The accused was questioned about the quantum of
sentence, the accused stated as follows :-
vdf;Fk; rk;gtj;jpw;Fk; rk;ge;jk; ,y;iy/
44
The above said answer is considered by this court
and the nature of the injuries and the conduct of the accused,
this court is come to the conclusion that the accused was
found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of
IPC.
44. In the result the accused is found guilty for the
offence u/s 302 IPC and the accused is convicted and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for four years for the offence u/s 302
IPC. M.O.1. to M.O.5. are ordered to be destroyed after the
appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this
Monday the 9th day of July 2012.
Sessions Judge.
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on the side of Prosecution :-
01. Thiru David
02. Thiru Manikandan
03. Thiru Suyambu
45
04. Thiru Ravi Sankar
05. Thiru Anandha Prabu
06. Thiru Bencikar
07. Thiru Robert
08. Thiru Ramachandran
09. Tmt Ananthi, Doctor
10. Thiru R. Rajesh, Doctor
11.Thiru Subramaniyan
12. Thiru Nadarajan, Village Administrative Officer.
13. Thiru Nagarajan
14. Thiru Suyambu
15. Thiru K.R. Sonamuthu, Sub Inspector of Police.
16. Thiru I. Jamal, Inspector of Police.
Witnesses examined on the side of Defence :-
01. Thiru Rajkumar
Exhibits marked on the side of Prosecution :-
1. 03.06.2009 .. First Information Statement.
2. 03.06.2009 .. Death Intimation.
3. 03.06.2009 .. Accident Register.
4. 03.06.2009 .. Requisition to Postmortem.
5. 03.06.2009 .. Postmortem Certificate.
6. 22.07.2009 .. Doctor's final opinion.
7. 03.06.2008.. Observation Mahazar.
8. 16.06.2009 .. Athatchi for recovery of M.O.1 and 2.
46
9. 16.06.2009 .. Admissible portion of Confession
Statement of the accused.
10. 03.06.2008 .. First Information Report in Crime No.
390/2009 of Vadasery Police Station.
11. 03.06.2009 .. Rough Sketch.
12. 03.06.2009 .. Inquest Report
13. 10.07.2009 .. Requisition to sent the properties for
Chemical examination.
14. 25.08.2009 .. Copy of letter sent to Regional Forensic
Science Department for chemical
examination.
15. 31.08.2009 .. Chemical examination Report
16. 27.10.2009 .. Serologist Report
Exhibits marked on the side of Defence :-
NIL
Material objects :-
1. Knife
2. Carry bag
3. Shirt
4. Lungi
5. Shirt
S.J.
Note: Accused remanded to Central Jail, Palayamkottai.
47
Sessions Court, Nagercoil.
Draft/Fair
JUDGMENT in
S.C.No. 19/2010
Dt: 09.07.2012.
