AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.1997 made in Sessions Case No.263 of 1996 on the file of
the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, convicting the accused/appellant herein and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life,
finding him guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C., for having caused grievous injuries on several vital parts of the body of the deceased
Jeyapaul with an intention to kill him at 6.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994 in Kallathikulam, within the jurisdiction of Alangulam Police Station.
2.1. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the evidence, is stated as follows:
The accused is an agent who used to make arrangements for labourers to work in stone quarries. The deceased Jeyapaul is a quarry labourer.
Velammal - P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, is also a coolie in quarry operation.
2.2. On the fateful day, i.e., 19.8.1994, the accused came to the house of the deceased Jeyapaul at 3.30 p.m. to find out why he had not turned up
for work. At that time, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, was present in the house. The deceased Jeyapaul told the accused that he did not go to
work as there was arrears of his wages payable by the accused. However, Jeyapaul followed the accused. Since Jeyapaul did not return till about
5.15 p.m. and on account of the quarrel between the accused and the deceased Jeyapaul with respect to the arrears of wages, his wife - P.W.1,
along with her brother P.W.2, went in search of Jeyapaul.
2.3. At about 5.50 p.m., when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were going near the channel on the southern bund, both of them saw the accused and Jeyapaul
exchanging wordy altercations and heard the accused saying ""cd;dhy;jhd; vd; bghHg;g[ bfl;Lg;nghr;R/ cd;id ehd; VjhtJ bra;ahky; tplkhl;nld;
meaning ""only because of you (deceased), my (accused) life got spoiled. I will not spare you without doing anything."" Uttering so, the accused cut
Jeyapaul with an aruval (billhook). When Jeyapaul attempted to ward off the assault, his right hand got severed at the wrist. The accused also
indiscriminately cut Jeyapaul on several other vital parts of his body, viz., head and face. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the gruesome attack by the
accused on Jeyapaul and cried aloud. Immediately, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went near Jeyapaul
and found him dead.
2.4. On the request of P.W.1, P.W.2 went to the village to inform the villagers about the fateful occurrence, and on such information, about 50
villagers came to the scene of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m. on 19.8.1994. Since the occurrence had taken place within the limits of Maranthai,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were directed to report the incident to the Village Administrative Officer at Maranthai. Since it was late night, P.W.1 and P.W.2
stayed at the scene of occurrence during the night, and on the next day at 8.00 a.m, they went to the Village Administrative Officer, Maranthai,
who was examined as P.W.4.
2.5. P.W.4 recorded the statement about the occurrence signed by P.W.1 and counter-signed by P.W.2, which was marked as Ex.P1.
2.6. After recording the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 P.W.4 - Village Administrative Officer, Maranthai, forwarded Ex.P1 along with his special
report, which is marked as Ex.P4, to the Alangulam Police Station through P.W.5 - Thalayari, and thereafter went to the scene of occurrence. The
Sub Inspector of Police, Alangulam, who was examined as P.W.11, acknowledged the receipt of Exs.P1 and P4 at 11 a.m. on 20.8.1994 and
registered the case at Alangulam Police Station as Crime No.563 of 1994 against the accused and the same was forwarded to the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Tenkasi.
2.7. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W.12, received a copy of the First Information Report at 11.15. a.m.,
went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar, marked as Ex.P5, in the presence of P.W.4. The Investigating Officer -
P.W.12 also prepared a rough sketch, marked as Ex.P14, and conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased Jeyapaul in the presence of the
panchayatdars, prepared an inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P15 and forwarded the same to the Court through a constable, examined as
P.W.10 and also shifted the body of Jeyapaul to the hospital through another constable - P.W.9 for post-mortem. P.W.9 reached the Tenkasi
Government Hospital at 7 p.m. and handed over the same to the doctor, examined as P.W.3, who had also conducted the post mortem on the
body of the deceased Jeyapaul and issued the post mortem certificate marked as Ex.P3.
2.8. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer - P.W.12, also recovered blood stained earth, marked as M.O.5 and sample earth, marked as
M.O.6 and prepared a mahazar - Ex.P6 in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, viz., Village Administrative Officer and Thalayari respectively of
Alangulam Village.
2.9. The post mortem certificate, marked as Ex.P3 through the doctor, examined as P.W.3, certifies the following grievous injuries on the body of
the deceased:
i. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm brain deep near the right fronto parietal region opposing the injured underlying frontal and parietal brain matter;
ii. Oblique incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep extending from the root of the nose to right zygomatic region;
iii. Right hand is severed completely at the wrist and attached by a tag of skin;
iv. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep over the middle of right fore arm posteriorly;
v. Vertical incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over left gluteal region;
vi. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm over the scrotum exposing the right testis;
vii. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm over the middle of left palm;
viii. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right deltoid region;
ix. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over right side of head extending from temporal region to the occipital region;
x. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm extending from the right side angle of mouth to angle of mandible exposing the out muscles bone and fresh cavity;
xi. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm across the middle of right thumb;
xii. Abrasion 3 cm over left elbow.
According to the doctor - P.W.3, the deceased could have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased,
about 36 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem. Based on the above statement of the witnesses and other documentary evidences, the investigating
officer - P.W.12, filed a final report, charging the accused/appellant herein for the offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. and the matter was
committed for trial.
3.1. On the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined, through whom 15 documents were marked and 6 material objects were
produced.
3.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses, who gave the statement marked as Ex.P1. P.W.3 is the doctor who received the body of the
deceased, conducted the post mortem and issued the post mortem certificate marked as Ex.P3. P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer,
Maranthai, who prepared the special report marked as Ex.P4 and forwarded Exs.P1 and P4 to the Sub Inspector of Police, viz., P.W.11 at
Alangulam Police Station through the Thalayari, examined as P.W.5.
The accused/appellant herein contended before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, that:
(i) the prosecution failed to establish the motive on the part of the accused in committing the murder;
(ii) the accused was not in arrears of wages to the deceased, because, the deceased was getting his wages only from one Velu.
(iii)Since P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon;
(iv) The statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded by P.W.4, viz., Ex.P1, should not be relied upon, as the same was obtained only in the
presence of P.W.12, the Investigating Officer at about 12.00 noon, and consequently, the first information report, marked as Ex.P13, also should
not be relied upon, and
(v) In any event, the case of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered by the accused at about 6.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994 is liable to be
rejected, in view of the opinion of P.W.3 - doctor, that the accused would have died 36 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem.
The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of prosecution, both oral and documentary, rejected the contentions of the
accused/appellant herein, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. and
sentenced him for imprisonment for life, by judgment dated 14.12.1997 made in S.C.No.263 of 1996. Hence, the above appeal.
Mr. S.E.Victor, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterated the defence taken by the accused/appellant herein before the Sessions Judge and
contends that:
(i) the motive attributed has not been proved; and
(ii) the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2, as recorded under Ex.P1, was lodged after much delay, as per the opinion of the doctor - P.W.3, that the
deceased would have died, 36 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem which was conducted at 7.00 p.m. on 20.8.1994. Neither the statement of
P.Ws.1 and 2 marked as Ex.P1, nor the first information report, marked as Ex.P13, could be relied upon, as they were fabricated for the purpose
of prosecution of the case; and
(iii) the prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
We are unable to appreciate any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8.1. P.W.1 has categorically stated that the deceased was acting as an agent to arrange labourers to work in the quarry. According to the
testimony of P.W.1, the accused came to the house of the Jeyapaul to take him to the work at 3.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994. Jeyapaul, at the first
instance, refused to go along with him, as there was arrears of wages payable to him. Jeyapaul also informed about the arrears to his wife - P.W.1.
Nowhere in the cross-examination it is elicited from the accused that he was not acting as an agent for arranging labourers to work in the quarry. It
is therefore evident that the deceased refused to go to work, as there was arrears of wages payable to him. The evidence in this regard, in our
considered opinion, clearly establishes the motive behind the murder.
8.2. It is well settled law that the discovery of true motive is not imperative, as motive is not an ingredient of the offence, nor motive is relevant,
where direct evidence is available. As the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the direct eye-witnesses to the crime prove the incident, motive
assumes only a secondary role and becomes less significant, and therefore, since the testimony of eye witnesses of P.Ws.1 and 2 is found to be
acceptable, the question of motive behind the murder is not relevant.
8.3. As the accused cannot be convicted on the proof of motive alone, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved for want of motive;
because, the rule of evidence does not contemplate any burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the worthfulness or credibility of motive,
much less any motive at all. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in view of the acceptable, reliable and unimpeachable ocular evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2, the want of proof of worthy motive, much less any motive for the murder in question, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
8.4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that in view of the opinion of the doctor - P.W.3 that the deceased
could have died 36 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem, the deceased could have been murdered between 3.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. on
19.8.1994, and therefore, the statement said to have been made by P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded by P.W.4 that the accused/appellant herein
indiscriminately cut the deceased at 6.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994 based on which a complaint was lodged under Ex.P13 becomes false and
unsustainable. It is hence contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all at 6.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994.
8.5. We do not agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. P.W.1 categorically deposes that the accused was acting
as an agent for arranging labourers to work in the quarry, but nothing was suggested in the cross-examination to the contrary. On the other hand,
the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination reinforces the case of the prosecution that the accused used to take the deceased to work in the
quarry and there was an arrears of wages payable to the deceased. On the fateful day when the deceased did not turn up for work, the accused
came to the house of the deceased to take him to the work. But the deceased refused to go at the first instance, complaining that there was already
arrears of wages payable to him. The deceased had also informed P.W.1 about the arrears of wages due to him. P.W.1 further deposes that
nevertheless, the accused took him out at 3.30 p.m. on 19.8.1994. Since the deceased did not return till 5.15 p.m., P.W.1 and her brother P.W.2
went in search of the deceased and found that the accused was shouting ""cd;dhy;jhd; vd; bghHg;g[ bfl;Lg;nghr;R/ cd;id ehd; VjhtJ bra;ahky;
tplkhl;nld;"" meaning ""only because of you (deceased), my (accused) life got spoiled. I will not spare you without doing anything"" and attacking the
deceased by an aruval (billhook), causing grievous injuries, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. P.W.2 also, graphically explains
about the assault made by the accused on the deceased by an aruval (billhook) on his right front parietal region, on his face, on his right fore hand
and over the middle of right fore arm, and over the middle of the left palm, etc. These cut injuries caused by the accused on the deceased Jeyapaul,
as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2, corroborate with the injuries observed by the doctor, examined as P.W.3, on the body of the deceased, as evident
from the post mortem certificate marked as Ex.P3. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the death could have occurred 36 to 40 hours prior to
the post mortem, would not, in any way, render the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, unreliable, as the doctor himself has opined that the
deceased appears to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by him, about which, P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly
spoken to.
8.6. It is a settled proposition of law that if direct evidence of witnesses to the occurrence satisfactorily and reliably depicts the commission of
crime, the same cannot be discredited merely based on a hypothetical medical opinion. That apart, unless the medical opinion rules out the
possibility of the injuries in the manner deposed by the prosecution witness, the evidence of the witness to the occurrence cannot be discarded. In
the instant case, we do not see any discrepancy between the injuries said to have been caused by the accused on the deceased, as witnessed by
P.Ws.1 and 2 directly and those found on the body of the deceased from the post mortem certificate, as testified by P.W.3, the doctor who
conducted the post mortem. In the absence of any such discrepancy, we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the direct
eye-witnesses to the occurrence, as satisfactory and reliable, because, the said multiple injuries are held to have been possibly inflicted on the
deceased in the manner deposed by the eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, and even as per the testimony of P.W.3, the deceased could have died
of shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained by him. Hence, the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, in our considered opinion,
cannot be rejected merely based on a hypothetical opinion of P.W.3 - doctor, that the death could have occurred 36 to 40 hours prior to the post
mortem. That apart, unless the evidence of eye-witnesses - P.Ws.1 and 2 is shaken by a glaring infirmity or a worthy inconsistency, it would not be
proper to question the correctness of their statements. Therefore, notwithstanding the opinion of the doctor that the deceased could have died
about 36 to 40 hours prior to the post mortem, we are inclined to accept the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, as the same
remained unshakeable in the cross-examination.
9.1. The next question left for consideration is as to whether the statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2, as recorded by P.W.4, is fabricated and was
there any delay in forwarding their statement - Ex.P1 and registering the consequent first information report marked as Ex.P13.
9.2. As narrated earlier, P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer of Maranthai Village who recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, marked
as Ex.P1 and forwarded the same along with his special report - Ex.P4 to the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.11 through P.W.5 - Thalayari of
Maranthai Village, who took Exs.P1 and P4 to the police Station at Alangulam. P.W.11 is the Inspector of police, Alangulam, who received
Exs.P1 and P4 at 11.00 a.m. on 20.8.1994 and registered the first information report marked as Ex.P13. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer who
prepared the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P5 at 12.30 p.m. and the inquest report at 4.30 p.m. on 20.8.1994. P.W.8 is the constable who
took the first information report at 12.00 noon and forwarded the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi at 1.00 p.m. P.W.12, the
Investigating Officer came to the scene of occurrence at 11.15 a.m., prepared the observation mahazar at 11.30 a.m. and held an inquest on the
body of the deceased Jeyapaul between 1.30 and 4.30 p.m. in the presence of the panchayatdars.
9.3. The evidence of these witnesses corroborate with each other to hold that after the gruesome murder of her husband Jeyapaul, P.W.1 and her
brother P.W.2 went to the village on the same night to inform the villagers, and on their suggestion, went to Maranthai to report the murder to the
Village Administrative Officer, Maranthai, on 20.8.1994 at 8.00 a.m., gave a statement to the Village Administrative Officer, Maranthai, who
recorded it at 9.00 a.m. and forwarded the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, along with his special report, Ex.P4
through the Thalayari - P.W.5, who reached the police station at Alangulam and handed over Exs.P1 and P4 at 11.a.m. to P.W.11 - Sub
Inspector of Police, who registered the first information report, which is marked as Ex.P13. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 also corroborates with
that of P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, Alangulam, in this regard. Similarly, P.W.8 - Constable states that he left the Alangulam Police Station at
12.00 noon and handed over the first information report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi at 1.00 p.m. The evidence of all these
witnesses, therefore, corroborate with each other. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the accused / appellant that the ksv V.S.
Sirpurkar,J. and P.D. Dinakaran, J. statements made by P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded by P.W.4, viz.,
Ex.P1 as well as the first information report, marked as Ex.13 are fabricated, stands defeated.
All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in fine, fail, and consequently, finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed.