Dismissed

Arthanari @ Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Aug 2015CRL A/379/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras heard an appeal against a conviction for murder (IPC Section 302). The Court upheld the trial Court's finding that the prosecution evidence was cogent and reliable, dismissing the appeal despite minor discrepancies in witness timelines and a suggestion of multiple assailants.

What did the court decide?

This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The appellant remains convicted under Section 302 IPC with the original sentence.

Arthanari @ Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶7

Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014 Arthanari @ Selvam S/o.Marimuthu @ Sukkar ... Appellant/Accused -vsState represented by Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, Erode District. Crime No.645 of 2006 ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of learned District Sessions Judge, Erode, passed in S.C.No.29 of 2007 dated 28.06.2007.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.R.Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T

¶9

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN , J.)

¶10

This appeal arises against the judgment of learned District Sessions Judge, Erode, passed in S.C.No.29 of 2007 on 28.06.2007, convicting the appellant/accused for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

¶11

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2006 at about 07.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding his bi-cycle near Venkateswara Soap Oil Company, Surampati, the accused, due

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

to previous enmity, obstructed him and caused cut injuries with an aruval. When the deceased attempted to run away, the accused chased him, brutally assaulted him and caused multiple cut injuries, owing to which the deceased met with his death. PW-1 preferred a complaint before PW-12, Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, who registered a case in Crime No.645 of 2006 for offences u/s.341 and 302 IPC on 16.08.2006 at 08.15 p.m.

¶14

PW-13, Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, took up the investigation on the same day. He went to the place of occurrence at about 09.15 p.m. He prepared rough sketch [Ex.P14] between 09.30 and 10.00 p.m. He prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P2] in the presence of PW-6 and one Namasivayam and obtained their signatures. He caused photographs to be taken by PW-8, videographer. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the same night. The inquest report is Ex.P15. He examined PWs.1, 2 and four others and recorded their statements. Upon completion of inquest on 17.08.2006, he sent the dead body to Government Hospital for conducting post mortem through PW-11, Head Constable. Thereafter, he seized blood stained earth [M.O.2], plain earth sample [M.O.3] and a Hero Cycle [M.O.4] in the presence of PW-6 and another. The seizure mahazar is Ex.P3. He examined PWs.3, 4, 6 and two others and recorded their statements. On 17.08.2006 at 02.00 p.m., he arrested the accused near Teachers Colony bus stand, Erode, in the presence of PW-7 and another. He recorded the confession statement [Ex.P4] of the accused in the presence of witnesses between 04.00 and 05.30 p.m. On the basis of the confession statement of the accused, he took the accused to his house and recovered a blood stained pant [M.O.5], blood stained shirt [M.O.6] and blood stained aruval [M.O.1] in the presence of the same witnesses. The seizure mahazar is Ex.P5. He took the accused to the police station at about 08.00 p.m. and sent him to judicial custody. On the same day, he examined PW-9, Dr.Karunanithi and obtained post mortem certificate [Ex.P7]. The post mortem certificate reads thus:

¶15

“Post-mortem Certificate

¶16

Regarding the body of male aged about 50 years, named Lakshmi Narayanan. Requisition received at 7.50 a.m. on 17.08.06 from the Inspector of Police of Erode South Police Station with his letter No.645/06 dated 17.8.06. Body in charge of Police Constable No.HC 1692 named Sankar.

¶17

Identification and caste marks – (1) ABM over the ® shoulder (2) ABM over (L) axilla

¶18

The body was first seen by the undersigned at 9.05 a.m. on 17.8.06. Its condition then was RM present in all 4 limbs.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Post-mortem commenced at 9.05 a.m. on 17.08.2006. Appearances found at the post-mortem – Well-nourished, symmetrical male body lying on its back at mortuary GH Erode, eyes closed, mouth opened and tongue inside. Injuries :

¶21

(1)A transverse linear wound irregular edges 7 cm below the lowerlip margin, 16 cms x 6 cms extending from the ® ankle of the mandible over the front of the neck and ending at the (L) side of the neck depth upto pharynx. Wound directed from upwards to downwards. Wound exposing the muscles and vessels which is lacerated at the edges and opening the pharynx above the thyroid cartilage. Blood clots present in the wound.

¶22

(2)An oblique incised wound from left downwards to midline 6x1x1 cm length over the chin 2 cm above the inj.No 1. On exploration mandible #.

¶23

(3)A transverse lacerated wound 3x1/2x1/2 cm on the ® side of the forehead above the eyebrow.

¶24

(4)A vertical maised wound 3x2 cm x bone deep on the ® side of the frontal region. On exploration skull # 2 cm in length direction corresponds to the external wound.

¶25

(5)A vertical incised wound 6 x 2 cm x bone deep over the (L) parital region – 5 cm above ear.

¶26

(6)An oblique wound irregular edges 4x2x1 cm on the ® side of the occipital region.

¶27

(7)An oblique lacerated wound 2x1/2x1/2 cm over the T- 9 vertebrae of the body.

¶28

(8)An oblique lacerated wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm 2 cm (L) of the injury 7.

¶29

(9)A transverse lacerated wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm 5 cm (L) of the injury No.8.

¶30

(10)An oblique wound with irregular edge on the outer side of the (L) forearm. 11 x 3 x bone deep 9 cm proximal to the wrist. Directed from back to downwards to the front. The muscles & tendons are lacerated.

¶31

(11)An oblique would irregular edges 5x1x1 cm over the (L) forearm. 1 cm distal and parallel to inj.No.10.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

(12)An oblique wound irregular edges on the (L) forearm 6x1/2x1/2 cm.

¶34

(13)An incised wound oblique 6x1x1 cm over the outer (L) upper arm 10 cm below the shoulder. Directed from back towards front downwards.

¶35

(14)An oblique incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm distal to the inj.No.13.

¶36

(15)A lacerated wound 1x1x1/2 cm over the lateral side of the (L) shoulder.

¶37

(16)An incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm over the lateral side of the ® shoulder.

¶38

(17)An incised wound transverse 3x1/2x1/2 cm over the inner side of the ® wrist.

¶39

(18)A wound edges transverse 5x1cmxbone deep over the medial side of the ® forearm 3 cm above the injury No.17.

¶40

(19)A transverse lacerated wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm over the ® palm.

¶41

(20)Abrasion 1x1 cm over the ® knee.

¶42

(21)Opening the skull there is a tear 2 cm in length over the brain membrane corresponding to injury No.4.

¶43

(22)Haematoma 5 x 4 cm over the brain deep to injury No.21. Thorax No.# .

¶44

Heart : 210 gm pale lungs ® 375 gms (L) 325 gms pale hyoid bone intact. Stomach contains 50 ml of yellow coloured fluid & partially digested food particles. Liver 1250 gms pale spleen 110 gms pale. Kidneys both 120 gm pale. UB empty brain 1300 gms pale. Spinal column intact.

¶45

Opinion as to cause of death -

¶46

(a) Reserved pending report of ............... (b) The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.”

¶47

Thereafter, he examined PW-7 and two witnesses and recorded their statements. He forwarded the seized materials, under Form95, through PW-11, Head Constable. On 18.08.2006, he examined PW-1 and two others and recorded their statements. On

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

21.08.2006, he examined PW-5 and recorded his statement. On 22.08.2006, he sent a requisition [Ex.P8] to the Judicial Magistrate seeking permission to send the seized materials for chemical analysis. The Judicial Magistrate, forwarded the seized materials for chemical analysis on 06.09.2006. The chemical analysis report is Ex.P10 and the serology report is Ex.P11. Upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet informing commission of the offences u/s.302 IPC against the accused.

¶50

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined, PWs.1 to 13, marked Ex.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 10. None were examined on the side of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges.

¶51

Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, has found the accused guilty, convicted him for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶53

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that PW-6 had informed of coming to know of the occurrence through one Jagadeesh, of visiting the scene of crime at about 07.30 p.m. and thereafter having proceeded to the police station to inform of the occurrence. It is his submission that such is the original information and the same has been suppressed. Learned counsel submitted that PW-9, Dr.Karunanithi, who conducted the post mortem, had deposed that injuries could have been caused by several persons and contended that the deceased had met his death owing to an attack by several persons. Learned counsel contended that PWs.1, 2 and 3 had not witnessed the occurrence. While PW-1 had informed the time of occurrence as 7.30 p.m., PW3 has informed the same to be 07.00 p.m. Learned counsel also pointed out that according to the First Information Report, PW-1 had informed of the appellant/accused having committed the offence since the deceased had illicit relationship with his wife.

¶54

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

PW-1 informed that the occurrence had taken place on 16.08.2006 at about 07.30 p.m. At his instance, the First Information Report [Ex.P13] has been registered by PW-12, SubInspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, at 08.15 p.m. on the same day. The same has been forwarded to Court on the same day. Inquest has been conducted on the very night of occurrence. Post mortem was conducted on 17.08.2006 at 09.05 a.m by PW-9, Dr.Karunanithi. The post mortem report has informed that death could have been occasioned 12 to 24 hours prior thereto. PWs.1, 2 and 3 have spoken to having witnessed the occurrence wherein the appellant/accused attacked the deceased and caused cut injuries while he was on his bicycle. Thereafter, the deceased had fallen down and attempted to run away, whereupon the appellant/accused chased and caused repeated cut injuries. The evidence of PW-6 discloses that upon his instructions, the deceased, Manager of PW-6's concern, had dismissed the appellant/accused from service two days prior to the occurrence. A stray line in the evidence of PW-6 of his having been informed by one Jagadesh, who has not been examined and of his having proceeded to the police station, however, which cannot undo the prosecution case. We find the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 3 cogent and trustworthy. The same finds support from the fact that the First Information Report has been registered within forty-five minutes of the occurrence. The First Information Report has reached the Court without any delay. The inquest has also been conducted on the same day. The prosecution case finds support also from the medical evidence since the time of death, though an approximation, had been placed at 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy, which, again would indicate that the time of occurrence rightly is informed by the prosecution witnesses. PW-9, Doctor, has only deposed that it was possible that the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been occasioned by several persons. He has not ruled out the possibility of all such injuries having been caused by one and the same person. Hence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution evidence is cogent and reliable for convicting the appellant/accused as found by the trial Court. The minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, as regards time, cannot be of much assistance to the appellant/accused for recording acquittal. We find absolutely no material to support the proposition that the appellant/accused had committed the offence owing to the provocation of the deceased having maintained an illicit relationship with his wife. We find no error or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant/accused for offence u/s.302 IPC based on the evidence available on record.

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

This Criminal Appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. This Court places on record the service rendered by Mr.R.Ganesh, Legal Aid Counsel and directs the State Legal Services Authority to pay as per rules the maximum remuneration towards his legal fees.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶61

//True Copy//

¶62

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Sessions Judge,
Erode.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Erode South Police Station,
Erode District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M/S.R.Ganesh, Advocate, S.R.No.46019
Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014
sai(CO)
srg(15/02/2016)

¶63

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arthanari @ Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arthanari @ Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Sharif Nawaz Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs Union of India

Parimala Vs the Secretary to Government

Sumathi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tmt.Palaniammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mrs.Tamilselvi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of