V. Bharathidasan JUDGMENT
V. Bharathidasan, J.
1. The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Uthagamandalam. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC. (3 counts). The Trial Court, by judgement dated 22.07.2014 convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, (3 counts) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count. The trial Court also directed the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused to run consecutively. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
"(i) It is a case of triple murder. The first deceased Jayakala @ Kala [D-1] is the wife of P.W.1. The second deceased minor Dheepa, [D-2] aged about 2 years is the daughter of the P.W.1. The 3rd deceased is one Chandra. The accused is the maternal uncle's son of D-1 and 3rd deceased Chandra [D-3]. On 17.01.2010, the accused and D-3 came to the house of P.W.1 and stayed there for three days. On 20.01.2010, the accused took all the deceased to D-3s house. On the next day morning, i.e., 21.01.2010, at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.1 went to D-3's house to take back his wife and daughter/A-1 and D-2. At that time, the accused came out of the house with bloodstained dhoti and he was having a knife in his hand. On seeing the accused, when P.W.1 asked the accused, what had happed, he went away, without stopping. When P.W.1 entered into the house, he found all the three persons lying dead and due to shock, he sat down there.
(ii) After some time, P.W.22, Inspector of Police, working in the Hope Police Station, after receipt of information about the occurrence, went to the scene of occurrence, obtained a statement (Ex. P1) from P.W.1 and returned back to the Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 6 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, prepared FIR (Ex. P19). Thereafter, again P.W.22 reached the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex. P20, a Rough Sketch, Ex. P20, recovered bloodstained soil, sample soil [M.Os. 2 to 5] in the presence of witnesses. At about 3.00 p.m., P.W.22 conducted inquest over the dead body of D-3 in the presence of panchayatars and prepared inquest report, Ex. P21. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body of Vijayakala in the presence of panchayatars and prepared an inquest report, Ex. P22 and then he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 in the presence of panchayatars and prepared inquest report Ex. P23. Thereafter, he sent all the three dead bodies to the Government Hospital, Gudalur, for postmortem, through P.Ws. 16, 17 and 18, Head Constables.
(iii) P.W.11, Assistant Civil Surgeon, working in the Government Hospital, Cudalur, conducted postmortem [autopsy] on the dead body of D-3 and found the following injuries:-
External Injuries: (i) A deep cut injury extending from right frontal region through right Pinna end just behind Right pinna, 7 x 2 x 1 CMs bone exposed (2) A sliced cut injury in the occipital region 4 x 3 CMS (3) a cut injury in the centre of head ending just medial to the left Eye 4 x 2 x 0.5 cms (4) A cut injury starting just below the left lower limb 4 x 3 x 2 cms left cheek size 5 x 2 x 3 cms. (5) A cut injury just below left lower limb 4 x 2 x 3 cms exposing bone (6) A cut injury in front of left ear directing downwards 4 x 2 x 3 cms. (7) Sliced injury in the back of left arm-tissue hanging of size 11x10x1 cms thickness with proximal attachment to the arm. (8) A cut injury back of left forearm just 5 cms distal to elbow size 6 x 3 x 1 cms (9) Left Hand: near total amputation just distal to Left wrist exposing radius, ulna and carpal bones, only skin flap intact in the flexor side of lynch (10) A cut laceration in the Right arm just proximal to right elbow about 5 cms of size 4 x 3 x 3 cms-muscle depth (11) A cut laceration in the back of the right Arm lower end with loss of tissue 11 x 7 x 3 cms depth bone exposed # humerus lower end (12) Laceration in the right forearm just distal to right Elbow about 6 cm distance, size 1 x 1 x 1 cm (13) Abrasion in the middle of right forearm 3 x 1 cms (14) Cut laceration in the dorsal aspect of right forearm about 5 cms proximal to right Wrist size 6x2x1 cms (15) Laceration just distal to right Wrist 1 x 2 x 0.5 cms (16) Two laceration in the dorsum of right thumb 1 x 1 x 0.5 cms and 1 x 2 x 1 cms (17) A cut laceration in the base of the index finger (rt) dorsal aspect 1 x 1 x 1 cms (18) sliced injury top the dorsum of rt. Thumb 2 x 2 x 3 cms (19) Multiple abrasion all over the face and rt. Forearm and rt. hand (20) Deep cut laceration in the left leg 13 cms from left knee in the antero lateral aspect size 13 x 3 x 3 cms exposing bones.
Generative organs: Normal No # Ribs, Heart and Lungs C/S Pale, Stomach contains 300 gms of partially digested food particles greenish white in colour. Liver C/S pale. Kidneys C/S Pale, Spleen C/S Pale. Intestine-Yellow colour Chyme and Bladder Empty, Uterus Empty, Skull wound No. (1), (2), (3) and (3) Membrane Intact. Brain C/S Pale.
She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries all over the body leading to Exangnation and Haemorrhage shock and death. She has given Postmortem Certificate Ex. P7.
He opined that the D-3 would appear to have died of multiple injuries all over the body, leading to exangnation and haemorrhage shock and death. He gave Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P7.
(iv) P.W.12, Civil Surgeon, working in the Government Hospital, Gudalur, conducted postmortem [autopsy] on the dead body of D-2 and found the following injuries:-
External Injuries (1) Deep lacerated transverse wound at the root of the neck extending from 5 cm below the angle of mandible runs backwards about 7 cms crossing about 7x3x3 cms (2) Small lacerated wound 2x1 cm over the superior border of scapula and depth of 1 cm (3) Lacerated wound posterior lateral aspect of right thigh middle third oblique & downwards 4x2x2 cm.(RM)+ all the limps.
Eyelids: closed Mouth: Opened Tongue: Inside the mouth Jaws: Clenched. Teeth 5/5. 5/5 GENITALIA: Normal, THORAX: No. of ribs. Heart: empty. C/S Pale LUNGS C/S Pale, HYOID BONE: Intact, ABDOMEN: Symmetrical, STOMACH About 250 ml of undigested food particles. C/S-Pale, Liver: C/S Pale, KIDNEYS C/S Pale, SMALL MEMBRANE: Intact. BRAIN: C/S Pale. She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of possible bleeding leading to haemorrhage shock exangnation and death. She has given Postmortem Certificate Ex. P8.
She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of possible bleeding leading to haemorrhage, shock exangnation and death. He gave Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P8.
(v) P.W.13, Assistant Civil Surgeon, working in the Government Hospital, Gudalur, conducted postmortem [autopsy] on the dead body of D-1 and found the following injuries.
External Injuries: 1. Right Upper limb-Neat total amputated just above wrist 8/8 level exposing both radius and ulna at lower 3 rd., only skin flap intact 2nd. at medial side. 2. LW as Right palm extends from Base of middle and ring finger till the wrist joint line, exposing tendons, bone, muscles, measuring about 10 CM x 4 CM and depth 4 CMs. 3. LW above the Right Elbow posterior aspect 3 Cm depth of about CMs. 4. LW 4 x 3 cms on the right Elbow posterior aspect 3 cm depth. 5. DLW 3 x 2 cm about 7 cms above the wound No. 4 depth exposing bone and mussels. 8. DLW over the root of neck in Right side over the right clavicle 3 x 2 cm size 3 cm depth. 9. DLW over lower lipsin the right side 4 x 2 cm and 2 cm depth 10 › about 9 x 5 cm exposing the skull. 12. Lt wound posterior aspect of Lt. ear extending 5 cm in length 3 cm breadths. 13. LW extending from right eyebrow lateral aspect 7 x 2 cm, depth 7 cms. 14. LW parallel to wound No. (13) 7 x 2 cm, 1 cm depth. LW posteriors aspect of neck midline 3x1 cm, 4 cm depth. 16. LW over the right scapula at the back of the 3 x 1 cm (deep 1 cm). 17. LW measuring 2 x 3 cm below (about 3 cm) angle of right scapula. 18. LW 2 x 1 cm depth 1 cm below wound No. 17 19. LW over the (L) shoulder 7 X 3 CM AND 3 CM DEEP POSTERIOR ASPECT. 20. DLW over (Lt) shoulder just below and parallel to wound No. 19. 6 x 3 cm and 3 cm depths. 21. LW 3 x 2 cms over it. elbow, lateral aspect 4 cm in depth 22. DLW just above left wrist posterior lateral aspect 6x4 cm exposing both bones left forearms. 23. LW parallel to wound No. (22) about 3 x 1 cm and 1 cm deep. 24. LW extending from root of index and middle finger to the wrist 10 cm x 4 cm, and 7 cm deep, exposing left patella.
He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage, shock and exangnation. He gave Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P9.
(vi) P.W.20, the Sub Inspector of Police, working in the Gudalur Police Station, searched the accused and on 21.01.2010, he found the accused near Gudalur Bus Stop and he took him to the Police Station and produced before P.W.22 and P.W.22 arrested the accused and on such arrest, he voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement (Ex. P4), P.W.22 seized blood stained Auval [M.O.1] and bloodstained dhoti under Seizure Mahazar Ex. P5, in the presence of witnesses and thereafter sent the accused for judicial custody. On 23.01.2010, P.W.20 examined the Doctors who conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of D1 to D3 and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 laid charge sheet."
3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined and 23 documents and 15 material objects were marked.
4. Out of the above witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the husband of D-1, namely, Vijayakala and father of D-2, namely, Dheepa. According to him, on 17.01.2010, the accused and D-3 Chandra came to his house and stayed there for three days and on 20.01.2010, the accused took all the three deceased to D-3 Chandra's house and on the next day i.e., on 21.01.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., he went to the D-3 Chandra's house to take back his wife and daughter and at the time, he saw the accused coming out of the house with bloodstained dhoti, possessing a knife in his hand and when he asked the accused as to what had happened, he went away without stopping and when he entered into D-3's house, he found all the three persons lying dead and out of shock, he cried and neighbours came and at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.22 came there and obtained a statement from him and registered the complaint. P.W.1 has further stated that the accused wanted to marry D-3 Chandra, but D-1 and D-2 did not agree for the said proposal and hence, in order to take revenge, the accused took all the deceased to D-3 Chandra's house and murdered them. P.W.2 is a neighbour of D-3, residing near the scene of occurrence. According to her, on 21.01.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.9 informed her that a murder has taken place in D-3 Chandra's house and both of them rushed there and saw the accused coming out of D-3 Chandra's house with bloodstained dhoti and having a knife in his hand and when P.W.1 stopped the accused, he went away without saying anything. P.W.3 is a neighbour of the D-3 Chandra. According to her, on 20.01.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., she heard some noise from D-3 Chandra's house; Chandra was stating not to attack D1 and D2 and she also heard a Male voice from D-3 Chandra house. P.W.4 is yet another neighbour of the D-3 Chandra. According to him, on 21.01.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., he heard some noise from Chandra's house. P.W.5 is a Jeep driver. According to him, on 21.01.2010 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused stopped the jeep and got into it and thereafter he got down near the Panchayat Office, Gudalur, and paid him Rs. 5/-, as hire and at the time, he found blood stains in his hand and Dhoti. P.W.6, the brother of D-3 Chandra, residing at Gudalur, has stated that after hearing the news, he went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.7 is the father of P.W.1. According to her, on 20.01.2010, the accused took all the deceased to D-3 Chandra's house. P.W.8 is a mahazar witness to the observation mahazar Ex. P2, and also recovery of material objects, namely, bloodstained soil, sample soil [M.Os. 2 to 5]. P.W.9 is also a neighbour of D-3 Chandra. According to her, on 20.01.2010, at about 5.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between D-3 Chandra, D-1 Vijayakala and the accused and at about 11.30 p.m., she heard some noise from D-3 Chandra's house and on the next day, morning 8.00 a.m., she saw the accused standing outside D-3 Chandra's house and crying that he had murdered three persons murdered and at that time bloodstained knife fell down from his dhoti and his dhoti got bloodstained. P.W.10 is a witness to the arrest of the accused, disclosure statement of the accused and recovery of M.O.1 Knife. P.W.11 is the Assistant Civil Surgeon, working in the Government Hospital, Gudur and has stated that he conducted postmortem on the dead body of D-3 Chandra and issued Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P7. P.W.12 is also Assistant Civil Surgeon, working in the Government Hospital, Gudalur. She has stated that she conducted postmortem on the dead body of D-2 Dheepa and issued Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P8. P.W.13, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Gudalur has stated that he conducted postmortem on the dead body of D-1 Vijayakala and issued Postmortem Certificate, Ex. P9. P.W.14 is the photographer, who took photos of the deceased in the scene of occurrence. P.W.15, Head Clerk, working in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudalur has stated that he sent the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.16 is the Head Constable who carried the dead body of D-1 Vijayakala to the Government Hospital, Gudalur and identified the dead body for postmortem. P.W.17 is the Head Constable who carried the dead body of D-3 Chandra to the Government Hospital, Gudalur and identified the body for postmortem. P.W.18, Head Constable has stated that he carried the dead body of D-2 Dheepa to the Government Hospital, Gudalur and identified the dead body for postmortem. P.W.19 is the Head Constable who submitted the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate Court and received the letter from the Judicial Magistrate Court and submitted the material objects to the Forensic Department. P.W.20 is the Sub Inspector of Police who secured the accused and produced him before the Inspector of Police. P.W.21 is a witness to the recovery of M.O.15 bloodstained dhoti and also M.O.1 Aruval. P.W.22, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police has deposed that he conducted investigation, prepared Observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch, arrested the accused, recovered material objects, examined witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. The accused himself examined as D.W.1, however he did not mark any document.
6. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences as stated in the first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.
7. We have heard Mr. N.A. Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
8. It is a case of triple murder. The deceased are closely related to the accused. So far as the motive for the murder is concerned, P.W.1 has stated that the accused wanted like to marry D-3 Chandra, for which D-1 Vijayakala and D-3 Chandra opposed and in order to take revenge, he took all the deceased to the house of D-3 Chandra and murdered them, brutally. It is established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 that on 20.01.2010, the accused had taken all the accused to the house of D-3 Chandra. Even as per the evidence of D.W.1, the accused, he took all the deceased to the House of D-3 Chandra on 20.01.2010 and stayed in her house. Hence, it is crystal clear that the accused was staying along with the deceased persons at the time of occurrence, in the house of D-3 Chandra. Even according to D.W.1, the accused, on 21.01.2010 at about 5.30 a.m., he woke up to answer the nature's call and saw all the deceased found dead. Further, according to him, at about 6.30 am., police came there and only at about 8.00 a.m., he informed P.W.1. Hence, the prosecution clearly established the motive for the murder of the deceased.
9. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the conduct of the accused. The conduct of the accused creates doubt in the mind of the case. After seeing the dead bodies, naturally, conduct of a normal person would be to immediately inform the same to police or to their relatives. Even according to the accused(D.W.1), he did not inform any body and there is no acceptable explanation from the accused for the same. Hence, the conduct of the accused is one of the vital link supporting the prosecution case. Apart from that, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 that all of them saw the accused, coming out of the house of D-3 Chandra with bloodstained knife and also found blood stained dhoti. P.W.5 is the driver of a Jeep. In his evidence, he has stated that on 21.01.2010, he took the accused in his jeep and dropped him near Panchayat Office, Gudalur. Subsequently, based on the disclosure statement of the accused, M.O.1 Aruval has been recovered.
10. The next important circumstance is the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, even as per his own evidence, at the time of occurrence, he was present in the house of D-3 Chandra. Even according to his evidence, all the deceased and the accused alone were in that house. Hence, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to prove the facts which is within his knowledge. Even though it is a rebuttable presumption, in our considered view, the accused did not discharge the said burden. It is one of the vital circumstance against the accused. Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Turning the sentences imposed, the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC (3 counts) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count. The trial Court has also directed the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused to run consecutively.
12. Considering the age of the accused and also the fact that he is a poor man and also considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, instead of directing the accused to undergo the sentences, consecutively, this Court is inclined to direct him to undergo the sentences, concurrently.
13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C. No. 19 of 2012, dated 22.07.2014, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC (3 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each counts, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each counts are confirmed. However, the direction issued by the trial Court that the sentences to run consecutively is modified to the effect that the sentences shall run concurrently. Further, it is directed that his case shall not be considered for remission for 20 years.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.