Ramar and Subramani vs State by the Inspector of Police

Ar. Ramalingam, J.—One Ramar viz., A1 and another Subramani viz., A2 have been convicted by the Trial Court under sec. 302 read with

sec. 34 IPC and sec. 307 read with sec. 34 IPC (four counts).

Facts leading to the conviction before the Trial Court are in brief as follows:-

P.W.s 1 to 5 are native of Kottayur village. PW1 viz., Ramu is the brother of the deceased Rajendran. There was some illicit intimacy between A1

Ramar and PW8 Palaniammal and so, A1 Ramar is known to P.W.s 1 to 5. So, there was some misunderstanding between PW8 Palaniammal

and her husband viz. Chinnavan. A1 was using to visit Kottayur village on account of his intimacy with PW8. While so, on 7.3.1998 at about 8.30

p.m., PW8 Palaniammal and her husband Chinnavan were quarreling with each other on account of arrival of A1 and his associate A2 at the

village. Such quarrel was enquired by the neighbours viz., P.W.s 1 to 5 and the deceased Rajendran. For that, Palaniammal requested them to

verify her alleged illicit intimacy with A1 who had come to the nearby Kaliamman temple of that village. Thereupon, the deceased Rajendran along

with P.W.s 1 to 5 went to the Kaliamman temple which is nearer and protested about the visit of A1 to the village all the way from his village

Muluvi and also directed both the accused to leave the village to avoid inconvenience to PW8 and her husband Chinnavan. Having aggrieved

against such direction, A2 Subramani took out two knives viz., M.O.s 2 and 3 from under the seat cover of the Yezdi motorcycle viz., M.O.1 and

advised A1 to do away with the people and also handed over the knives to A1. Following that, A1, with M.O.s 2 and 3 in his hands stabbed the

deceased Rajendran, on the stomach of PW2 M. Ganesan, on the back of PW3 Krishnakumar, on the left hip of PW4 Sakthivelu and on the left

shoulder of PW5 A.Ganesan and that in consequence, the injured Rajendran fell down in front of the house of one Arjunan and died on the spot.

Thereupon, the villagers came and caught hold of A2 Subramani and tied him in a pole in front of the Kaliamman temple and A1 Ramar escaped.

Thereafter, P.W.s 2 to 5 who were all injured came to the Government Hospital, Salem for treatment at about 11.30 p.m. on 7.3.1998 itself.

P.W.10, Dr. Sivasubramaniam examined them and furnished wound certificates viz., Exs.P10 to P13. In the meanwhile, PW1 Ramu, with the help

of one Rajendrakumar prepared the complaint Ex.P1 and handed over the same at Veeranam police station. It was received by PW14 viz.,

Sasidharan, Sub Inspector of Police who was present at that time at the police station at about 1.00 a.m. on 8.3.1998, registered a case in Crime

No. 160/98 and prepared printed FIR Ex.P20. Thereafter, PW15 Inspector of Police viz., S.P. Murugesan who was in charge of Steel Plant

police station received information of the F.I.R., visited the place of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on the same day and found Ex.A2 tied in a pole and

arrested him and also prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P2 showing the place of occurrence. Further, he conducted

inquest on the dead body of Rajendran from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared inquest report

Ex.P22 and made arrangements for sending the dead body for post mortem through PW12 Thiru. Kumarasamy Grade I constable. Further, he

recovered the blood stained earth M.O.8, sample earth M.O.9 and he also recovered Yezdi Motorcycle M.O.1, chappals M.O.6 series and

M.O.7, blood stained earth, sample earth viz., M.O.s 4 and 5 and made arrangements for treatment to A2 in a private hospital at Ammapettai for

his injuries and then he sent A2 to the Government Hospital with the police memo and thereafter he remanded A2 to judicial custody. In the

meanwhile PW9 Dr. Sellammal Poori conducted post mortem upon the dead body of Rajendran at 3.45 p.m. on 8.3.1998 and found six ante

mortem injuries and gave opinion that the said Rajendran would have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries to the lungs and other parts

and furnished post mortem report marked as Ex.P8. Thereupon the regular Inspector of Police viz., Sarkarai PW16 returned to duty on 9.3.1998

and took up further investigation and on information about the surrender of A1 before the Judicial Magistrate, filed necessary petition on

17.3.1998 and took A1 under police custody and recorded his confession statement marked as Ex.P5. In pursuance of such confession statement,

he recovered M.O.s 2 and 3 knives and thereafter recovered clothes from the dead body under form 95 and sent all the M.O.s to the Judicial

Magistrate with the requisition to send them for chemical analysis. He completed investigation and filed charge sheet against both the accused.

After having considered the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted both the accused under

sec. 302 read sec. 34 IPC and sec. 307 read with sec. 34 IPC (four counts). Challenging the said conviction, this appeal has been filed.

The defence of the accused is one of total denial and the counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would take us through the entire evidence

in this case and contend that there is delay in FIR, the occurrence did not happen in the manner alleged by the prosecution, benefit of doubt is

available for the accused, if at all the occurrence is true, the accused could have exercised their right of private defence or at the best they could

have attacked the victims on a sudden provocation and there was no motive at all against the deceased or the injured witnesses and therefore, the

appellants are entitled for acquittal.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. E. Raja would contend that the evidence available for the prosecution is more than

sufficient to establish the motive for the occurrence, over acts as alleged by prosecution and there is no significant delay in FIR and there is no

question of sudden provocation or right of private defence and the conviction is liable to be sustained.

On our careful and thorough scrutiny of the evidence available in this case, we are able to notice the following aspects to come to the conclusion

that the conviction is sustainable and there is no ground to get any view otherwise.

Regarding the aspect of motive or intention, it is a mental status that can be appreciated in a particular circumstance of the occurrence. No

doubt, in this case, there is no previous enmity between the accused on one hand and the deceased Rajendran and P.W.s 2 to 5 on the other hand.

But, at the same time, it has to be noted that the accused belonging to a village which is far away from Kottayur have come to the occurrence

village in Yezdi motorcycle on the evening of 7.3.1998 itself with knives and were waiting before Kaliamman temple with a view to get in touch

with PW8 Palaniammal due to illicit intimacy. It is also to be noted that at about 8.30 p.m., PW8 Palaniammal and her husband Chinnavan started

quarreling in connection with the arrival of the accused particularly A1 at the village in a way of causing disturbance to the sleep of neighbours and

that naturally, the neighbours viz., P.W.s 1 to 5 and the deceased Rajendran have enquired about such quarrel and for this PW8 Palaniammal

asked them to verify with A1 about the question whether there is any illicit intimacy between herself and A1 who is available near Kaliamman

temple. It is also quite natural that P.W.s 1 to 5 and the deceased Rajendran to go near the Kaliamman temple and advise A1 who was present

there to leave the village for the purpose of avoiding misunderstanding between the said Chinnavan and PW8. It is to be noted that only in such a

situation, A1 gets anger and protested against such advise of the villagers and after some wordy altercation A2 took two knives from the

motorcycle and handed over the same to A1 with the instruction to do away those P.W.s 1 to 5 and the deceased Rajendran. In response to such

instruction and after receiving the knives, A1 stabbed the deceased Rajendran first and consecutively P.W.s 2 to 5 and caused injuries. In the

result, Rajendran died on the spot in front of the house of Arjunan. In the said circumstances and situation, it cannot be stated that there is no

motive or intention to murder the deceased Rajendran or P.W.s 2 to 5. Instead it can certainly be stated that both the accused have decided and

intended to kill the deceased Rajendran as well as P.W.s 2 to 5, stabbed them with the knives without able to withstand the protesting words of

P.W.s 1 to 5 against the conduct and relating illicit intimacy of A1 with PW8 Palaniammal. Such an intention and motive is also confirmed by the

act that A1 has caused about six injuries upon the body of Rajendran with various dimensions and the lungs of the said Rajendran has been pierced

leading to his instantaneous death and however P.W.s 2 to 5 have narrowly escaped from death. So, we are of the view that there is clear motive

and intention on the part of both the accused to do away with the deceased Rajendran and P.W.s 2 to 5 or otherwise A1 need not have caused so

many injuries upon the deceased Rajendran as well as P.W.s 2 to 5 and A2 also need not have actively assisted A1 by taking knives from the

motorcycle and handing over the same to A1 with the instruction to attack Rajendran and P.W.s 2 to 5. If really, there was no motive or intention

on the part of the accused, they would have simply responded to the advise of the villagers and gone out of Kottayur village with their motorcycle.

Coming to the question of manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the relating over acts, we are able to see that PW1 Ramu who is

also the complainant and P.W.s 2 to 5 injured witnesses have given evidence consistently and cogently without material contradictions between any

of them to the effect that on instruction of A2 and on receipt of knives from A2, A1 stabbed the deceased Rajendran and then P.W.s 2 to 5 and

caused injuries, Further, it is also to be noted that there is no question of identity of the accused inasmuch as the above said eyewitnesses were

able to see the occurrence in clear moonlight and that is why A2 was also caught by the villagers and tied in a pole before the Kaliamman temple

soon after the occurrence. Therefore, there is no reason as to why all the eyewitnesses should give evidence falsely against both the accused that

too when there was no previous enmity between them. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 5 is truthful and trustworthy without any

stretch of doubt.

No doubt, PW10 viz., Dr. Sivasubramaniam, who admitted the injured witnesses in the Government Hospital for treatment, had recorded,

deposed and furnished wound certificate to the effect that two known persons and other unknown persons totally ten attacked those persons with

knife. By taking advantage of this aspect, it is argued as if that the occurrence could not have happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution,

but, it could only be due to the clash between two groups of persons who were having rivalry in doing illicit distillation business and thereby the

benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

The witnesses, being tribal villagers, cannot be expected to say the details in clear terms about the persons who attacked them at the time when

they were in tensed situation on account of the injuries sustained by them, but, however, it has been stated by them that they were attacked by two

known persons and those two known persons could not be other than these two accused. Moreover, PW1 as well as P.W.s 2 to 5, in the witness

box before the Trial Court, have categorically given evidence to the effect that A1 alone attacked them with knives. If really, some more persons

are also involved in the occurrence, they would have stated that apart from these two accused, some more persons also participated in the attack

and there is no necessity or compulsion for them to leave other persons. In such circumstances, as we have already observed, the evidence of

PW1 and P.W.s 2 to 5 are more convincing and believable without any doubt and consequently there is no scope for getting any doubt in this case

so as to give benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them.

Coming to the aspect of alleged delay in FIR, it is to be noted that the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 9.00 p.m. on 7.3.1998

and FIR has been registered at 1.00 a.m. on 8.3.1998 by PW14 and printed FIR has been received by the Judicial Magistrate at 3.45 a.m. In

other words, the FIR has been prepared in the police station more or less within four hours from the time of occurrence. In this regard, it is to be

noted that PW1, without bus facility after 10.00 p.m. from his village, appears to have gone to the police station in a bicycle for the purpose of

handing over the complaint Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police. So, PW1, being a tribal villager, has to go to the police station in the odd hours

only in a bicycle. so, it cannot be viewed as if there is abnormal and significant delay in FIR and on the other hand, it is quite reasonable in the

practical point of view and nothing can be stated as if FIR has been wilfully delayed. In such circumstances also, no question of delay in FIR in this

case arises.

There is no question of right of private defence or sudden provocation as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/accused, inasmuch as neither PW1 nor P.W.s 2 to 5 approached the accused with weapons or any aggravating manner nor they acted

in such a way to provoke the accused leading A1 to attack with dangerous knives M.O.s 2 and 3. So, the action and conduct of the accused,

particularly, A1 cannot be construed to be by way of right of private defence or by way of sudden provocation.

Apart from this, there are corroboratory materials like the evidence of PW10 Dr. Sivasubramaniam who has furnished wound certificates to

P.W.s 2 to 5 quoting the injuries of various dimensions and PW9 Dr. Sellammal Poori who has conducted post mortem and furnished post mortem

certificate stating that Rajendran died due to shock and hemorrhage due to the various injuries particularly injury in his lungs and the evidence of

PW15 Inspector of Police who has conducted inquest upon the dead body of Rajendran and prepared inquest report marked as Ex.P22 and who

has also recovered M.O.s from the place of occurrence as well as the place where the dead body was lying and there is also evidence of PW16

Inspector of Police who has taken A1 in police custody and recorded his confession statement and in pursuance of such confession statement he

has also recovered M.O.s 2 and 3 knives and also the evidence of PW13 Head Clerk in the court of Judicial Magistrate IV, Salem for sending the

material objects for chemical analysis and receipt of chemical analysis report, serologist report, etc. Therefore, if the evidence of PW1 and P.W.s

2 to 5 coupled with corroboratory evidence such as evidence of Inspectors of Police, in the light of wound certificates, post mortem certificate,

material objects and chemical analysis report and serologist report is considered, it becomes very clear that the accused have committed the

offences under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 IPC and sec. 307 read with sec. 34 IPC (four counts) and thereby conviction and sentence awarded by

the Trial Court stand justified and there are no acceptable and sufficient grounds to interfere with such conviction and sentence. Accordingly, this

appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.