Dismissed

Ramesh Majhi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Apr 2016CRL A/98/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a criminal appeal by Ramesh Majhi, rejecting all grounds raised. An eyewitness twitnesses placed the appellant at the scene of the murder, the court found the conviction valid under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the trial court are confirmed.

Ramesh Majhi Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

CRL.A.No.98/2014

¶6

Ramesh Majhi .. Appellant/sole accused
Vs
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station,
Salem District. .. Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 31.07.2013, made in
S.C.No.264 of 2011.
For Appellant : M/s.S.S.Jothivani
For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT

¶7

[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.]

¶8

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.264 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. He has come up with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, by the trial court, for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. By judgment dated 31.07.2013, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and no fine was imposed for both the offences.

¶9

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

¶10

The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:(a) The deceased, in this case, was one Perumal. P.W.1 Mr.Paramasivam is his son. They were residing at Muthunaickenpatti Pudhu Road in Kattusothan Circle Village. On 17.03.2012, they were sleeping inside a Mosquito Net on the payal of their house. P.W.7 is the yet another son of the deceased. On the night intervening 17.03.2012 and 18.03.2012, he was also sleeping in his house. By about 12.00 midnight, when P.W.1 and the deceased were fast asleep, they heard a violent loud noise tapping the door of the adjacent house. P.W.1 and the deceased were awakened by the same. They came out of the mosquito net and found the accused standing near the house. When they went near him suspecting him that he had come there to commit theft, suddenly, the accused, with a wooden log, attacked the deceased on his head and other parts of the body. P.W.1 intervened. The accused attacked him also with the same wooden log. They raised alarm. The deceased fell down in a pool of blood. P.W.2 and P.W.3 the neighbours, on hearing the alarm raised, rushed to the place of occurrence. They, with the help of the other neighbours, who had also arrived at the scene of occurrence, attempted to catch hold the accused. He started running. They gave a chase and managed to catch him hold. They brought the deceased to the place of occurrence. When they enquired, they found that the accused was speaking only Hindi. From and out of his speech, they could make out only the name of the accused as Ramesh Majhi.

¶11

(b) The neighbours immediately rushed P.W.1 and the deceased to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem in an Ambulance. P.W.5 Dr.Hemamalini, examined the deceased at 01.10 a.m. on 18.03.2012. She found the following two injuries on the body of the deceased :

¶12

(1) A deep lacerated wound measuring 3 x 3 x 3 c.m. on the back of the head ; and

¶13

(2) A laceration on the left hand. She was informed that the deceased was attacked by an unknown person at his house. Ex.P.4 is the Accident Register.

¶14

( c) On the same day at 01.20 a.m., she examined P.W.1. P.W.1 told her that at his house, he was attacked by an unknown person with iron rod. She found an abrasion measuring 3 x 2 x 2 c.ms. below his right hand. She admitted him as inpatient. Ex.P.5 is the Accident Register. Then, she gave intimation to the police.

¶15

(d) P.W.10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who was on night round duty, received message that there was an occurrence

¶16

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

¶17

at Pudhu Road, Kattusothan Circle Village. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of occurrence. He found a huge crowd of the villagers at the house of the deceased. The accused was in the custody of the villagers. On enquiry, the accused spoke in Hindi and told that his name was Ramesh Majhi and he is from Bihar State. P.W.10 took the accused in his custody to the Police Station. He kept one Police Constable at the place of occurrence for protection. He only made arrangement for P.W.1 and the deceased being taken to hospital in 108 Ambulance. After leaving the accused in the police station, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 06.00 a.m. on 18.03.2012. On returning to the police station, he handed over the said statement Ex.P.1 to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police.

¶18

(e) P.W.11 the Inspector of Police, on the basis of Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2012 under Sections 448, 324 and 307 of IPC against the accused. He prepared a First Information Report Ex.P.10. He forwarded both the documents to court which were received by the learned Magistrate at 08.15 a.m. on 18.03.2102. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness on 18.03.2012 at 09.15 a.m. He recovered the wooden log, blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.3 Mahazar in the presence of some witnesses. Then, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and few more witnesses. When the investigation was in progress, he received intimation from the hospital that the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 12.10 p.m. on 18.12.2012.. Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.

¶19

(f) P.W.11 went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 02.00 p.m. and 04.00 p.m. on 18.12.2012 and forwarded the body for postmortem.

¶20

(g) P.W.6 Doctor N.Sangeetha conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 18.03.2012 at 04.10 p.m. She found the following injuries:

¶21

''Injuries: Left Ear Bleeding Noted

¶22

1.Dark Red Abrasion seen over right cheek 1 x 1 cms; Left Mandibular Region 4 x 2 cms, top of the left shoulder two in number 4 x 2 cms., 3 x 2 cms with surrounding contusion 7 x 6 cms.

¶23

2.An Oblique sutured laceration over left parieto occipital region with 6 sutures on removal 9 x 2 x 1 cms with irregular edges it is situated 3 cms behind the left ear, another sutured laceration over right forehead with 3 sutures on removal 4 x 2 x 1 cms with

¶24

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

¶25

irregular edges.

¶26

3.Laceration over Mid occipital region 3 x 1 x bone deep with irregular edges it is situated 3 cms below the occipital protuberance. Laceration over left Palmar aspect of space between the index and middle finger 4 x 1 x muscle deep.

¶27

4.Swelling with deformity seen over middle third of left arm. O/D comminuted fracture of middle third of left humerous -with surroundings soft tissue contused.

¶28

5.Swelling with deformity seen over upper left shoulder O/D comminuted fracture head of humerous -with surrounding soft tissue contused.

¶29

6.Contusion over front of left chest 15 x 4x0.25 cms O/D underlying subcutaneous and inter costal muscle upto 1 to 4 intercostal space (above injuries were antemortem in nature)

¶30

Other findings

¶31

1.O/D Throax: Fracture left clavicle ... Fracture Ribs Left 1-8 in anterior axillary line, with surrounding inter costal muscle contusion. Heart-Normal in size. Chambers contains dark fluid blood valves and coronaries patent lungs C/S congested.

¶32

2.O/D Neck: Conutsion over left side strap muscle 5 x 3 cms Larynx, Trachea hyoid bone -intact.

¶33

3.O/D Abdomen:Stomach-120 gms of Partly digested food particles with no specific smell mucosa-congested. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys-C/s Congested Bladder-Empty. Pelvis and spinal colum-intact genitalia -intact.

¶34

4.O/D Head: Scalp- Sub scapular contusion over right fronto tremporal region 6x5x0.25 with right temporalis muscle contused, contusion over left parieto occipital region 10x7 cms. Cranial Vault-Intact. Brain -Sub Arrachnoid Hemorrhage over both occipital lobe and both side cerebellum base of the skull-intact.''

¶35

Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem Certificate. She gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained by him and she further opined that the said injuries could be caused by a weapon like M.O.1 Wooden Log.

¶36

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

¶37

(h) P.W.11 arrested the accused and forwarded him to court for judicial remand. He recovered the blood stained dhoti from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to court. At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was no blood stain on the wooden log and P.W.12 continued the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused.

¶38

Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 19 documents and 4 material objects were also marked.

¶39

Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken about the occurrence. They have stated that it was this accused, who attacked the deceased with wooden log and also P.W.1. P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him under Ex.P.1. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.1 and the deceased at the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem. P.W.6 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.7 is the yet another son of the deceased who has also spoken about the occurrence as an eye-witness. According to him, when he was sleeping inside the house, he heard a screaming noise. Then, he came out the house and found the rest of the occurrence. P.W.8 is a villager, who has spoken that he knows Hindi and after the accused was detained by the villagers, he spoke to him in Hindi and he told about his name and his address. This statement was made by the accused in the presence of P.W.10. Though P.W.8 has stated that the accused confessed that it was he, who attacked the deceased, the said evidence is inadmissible in view of the fact that the said statement was made while the accused was in the custody of P.W.10, the Police Officer. P.W.9 has spoken about the fact that he took the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.10 has spoken that while he was at night round duty, he heard about the occurrence, rushed to the place of occurrence and found P.W.1 and the deceased with injuries. He made arrangements for 108 Ambulance to shift them to the hospital. At that time, he found that the accused was kept in the custody of the villagers. He took the accused to the police station, then, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the police station, he handed over the same to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, who, later on, arrested the accused. P.Ws.11 and 12

¶40

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

¶41

have spoken about the investigation done and the filing of the final report.

¶42

When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.

¶43

Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

¶44

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶45

In this case, P.W.1 is an eye-witness to the occurrence and he is also an injured witness. He has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. He has stated that when he was sleeping along with the deceased inside the mosquito net, in front of their house, they were awakened by the loud noise of tapping of the door of the neigbour. When they came, they found the accused standing with a wooden log. He attacked P.W.1 as well as the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3, the neighbours, who rushed to the scene of occurrence, have also seen and they have also vividly spoken about the occurrence. P.W.7, the yet another son of the deceased, who was sleeping inside his house, has stated that he came out of the house and found the accused.

¶46

From these evidences, it has been clearly established that it was this accused who attacked the deceased and P.W.1. Because, on seeing P.Ws.2, 3 and other neighbours, the accused took to his heels and P.Ws.2 and 3 and the neigbours gave a chase and the accused was brought back to the place of occurrence. P.W.10, who had gone there on routine night round Bandhobust, found the accused in the custody of the villagers. He arranged for shifting P.W.1 and the deceased to the hospital immediately. Thus, the very fact that the accused was caught red handed in the place of occurrence would further go to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The accused was a total stranger to P.Ws.2 and 3 and other villagers. Therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses. From these evidences let in by the prosecution, we are convinced that the prosecution has clearly proved that it was this accused, who attacked the deceased as well P.W.1 with wooden log M.O.1.

¶47

From the evidence of P.W.6 Doctor N.Sangeetha, the

¶48

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

¶49

prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries caused by the accused and thus, it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution has further proved that it was this accused who made murderous attempt on P.W.1 by causing injury with wooden log on his body. Thus, we conclude that the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused had caused the death of the deceased and also made an attempt on the life of P.W.1.

¶50

The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that in the statement made to the doctor at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 had told that the deceased and P.W.1 were attacked by an unknown person. Relying on the same, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that therefore, the assailant was not known to P.W.1. This argument does not persuade us at all because though the assailant was in the custody of the villagers, the fact remains that he was not a known person to P.W.1. That is how he told the doctor at the earliest point of time that he was attacked by an unknown person. Therefore, we do not find any force in the said argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶51

The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that though it is alleged by P.W.1 that he along with the deceased sleeping inside the mosquito net in the payal of his house, the mosquito net has not been recovered and that the dress of the accused also has not been recovered.

¶52

In our considered view, these are all immaterial and that it would not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the said argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected.

¶53

Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for having intentionally caused the death of the deceased and for the offence under Section 307 of IPC for having attempted on the life of P.W.1. Therefore, the court below is right in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

¶54

So far as the quantum of the punishment is concerned, in our considered view, the trial court has imposed only a reasonable punishment, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Further, the trial court ordered to run the sentences concurrently which in our considered view is correct. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶55

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

¶56

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

¶57

accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial court are hereby confirmed.

¶58

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station,
Salem District.
2.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
5. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.S.S.Jhothivani, Advocate, sr.26042
Crl.A.No.98/2014
ev co
kra 01.06.2016

¶59

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

Ramesh Majhi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Majhi 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

Vandimalayan Vs the State Rep by

Tower Murugan @ Murugan, Vs State by Inspector of Police

G.Surendran Vs State Rep. by

Divya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Lakshmanan Vs the Secretary to Government

Kumar Vs the Secretary to Govt.