Mani alias Elumalai vs The State

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Mani alias Elumalai was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(i), I.P.C. on 3 counts.

Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

(a) The deceased Balasubramanian was an Advocate practising at Gingee. There was a land dispute between the accused Mani and one Raji,

P.W. 6. The deceased Balasubramanian being a relative of P.W. 6 appeared for him in all the proceedings. To resolve the dispute between these

persons, there was a panchayat convened on 17-5-1998. The decision of the panchayat was not accepted by the accused. There was a quarrel in

the panchayat itself. Therefore, the accused lodged a complaint, Ex. P-7 against the deceased, Balasubramanian and P.W. 6 Raji and other

persons before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. Apart from this case, yet another case was registered by the police against both

accused and P.W. 6 for the offence u/s 160, I.P.C. The deceased, the advocate filed a bail application and obtained bail for P.W. 6. Since the

deceased Advocate supported the cause of P.W. 6, the accused had a grudge against the deceased.

(b) The occurrence had taken place on 11-6-1998. On that date at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased Balasubramanian was sitting along with other

Advocates in the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee: The Assistant Public Prosecutor was also sitting there. They were all waiting for the

Judicial Magistrate to come to the dias. The accused suddenly entered into the Court hall from western side and started to attack the deceased

with Koduval, M.O. 1, inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased Balasubramanian. The deceased fell down from the chair and became

unconscious, When P.W. 1, an advocate P.W. 2, Head Constable, P.W. 3 another advocate and P.W. 4, Assistant Public Prosecutor went near

him, the accused threatened them with the Koduval, M.O. 1 and ran to the dias and hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate.

Then, all of them climbed to the dias and caught hold of the accused. P.W. 2 Head Constable snatched the Koduval, M.O. 1 from the accused.

While doing so, P.W. 2 sustained injuries on his hand.

(c) The victim, advocate was immediately taken to Gingee Hospital for treatment. P.W. II, Doctor provided first aid and referred the deceased to

JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry as the condition of the deceased was so serious. The accident register is Ex. P-9. He treated P.W. 2, Head

Constable and issued wound Certificate, Ex. P-10.

(d) In the meantime, P.W. 14, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint, Ex. P-1 from P.W. 1. He registered the case u/s 307, I.P.C. and

prepared First Information Report, Ex. P-13 and recovered M.O. 1 Koduval and arrested the accused. He went to the scene of occurrence and

prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. He also recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth. In the meantime, the victim died at

JIPMER Hospital. On receipt of the death intimation, P.W. 14, Sub-Inspector of Police altered the offence into one u/s 302, I.P.C. and sent

Express Report, Ex. P-15.

(e) P.W. 16, Inspector of Police came to the JIPMER Hospital and conducted inquest on 12-6-1998. Ex. P-16 is the Inquest Report. He

examined the witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and others. Then he sent the dead body for post-mortem.

(f) P.W. 13, the Doctor conducted post-mortem on 12-6-1998 at 12.15 p.m. and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex. P-12. He found three cut

injuries on the head of the deceased and gave an opinion that the death would have caused due to the injuries on the head.

(g) P.W. 16 continued the investigation by recording statements of the witnesses. He sent, requisition to the Court for sending the material objects

for chemical analysis. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused, under Sections 449, 302 and 506(1),

I.P.C.

Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined; Exs. P-1 to P-21 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 14 were

marked.

When the accused was questioned u/s 313, Cr. P. C., he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case had been foisted against

him.

The trial Court accepting the prosecution case convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(i) (3 counts) I.P.C.

Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal.

Mr. Victor, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the entire evidence and would contend that the evidence adduced by the

prosecution to prove the case is not cogent and reliable and as such, the conviction imposed upon the appellant is liable to be set aside.

Mr. E. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting is correct and

therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

and gone through the records.

According to prosecution, the occurrence had taken place inside the Court hall on 11-6-1998 at about 10.15 a.m. in the presence of the

advocates, the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Police Constables. P.W. 1, the first informant is a practising advocate in the said Court. P.W. 2 is

the Head Constable who snatched the Koduval, M.O. 1 from the accused who hid himself underneath the table of the Judicial Magistrate after the

attack. P.W. 3 is another Advocate practising in the same Court. P.W. 4 is the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the said Court. All of them saw the

occurrence.

The evidence of the above witnesses corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W. 11 and P.W. 13, Doctors, would clearly show that the

occurrence had occurred inside the Court Hall in the manner alleged by the prosecution. P.W. 2 Head Constable, who caught hold of the accused

who hid himself beneath the table of the Magistrate sustained injuries while snatching the Koduval from him. P.W. 11, Doctor has treated P.W. 2

for the injuries sustained by him.

Though it is contended that the evidence of these witnesses is not reliable, there is no reason given by the learned counsel for the appellant to

reject their evidence which is so natural. As a matter of fact, the witnesses who are the advocates, the Head Constable and the Assistant Public

Prosecutor have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, the complaint given by P.W. 1, the advocate had been endorsed by the Judicial

Magistrate himself.

It is unfortunate to notice that the accused came to the Court Hall with a plan to murder the deceased in advocate robes at about 10.15 a.m.

and mercilessly made a brutal attack with aruval in the presence of the advocates and the police probably thinking that the Court premises would

be the safest place to execute his evil design. This, further shows that he came to the Court with the clear intention to commit murder of the

deceased advocate, unmindful of the ensuing consequences. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the conviction and sentence

imposed upon the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.