J.F.No. 61 – Page

 Judicial Form No. 61

(Cr.R.P 106)

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE,  MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,

Sessions Judge,

 Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai

Dated, Monday, the 11^th day of April 2022

2053? jpUts;Sh; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 28k; ehs;  jp’;fl;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No:  68/2017

( CNR NO. TNCH01- 002779-2017)

ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI

(P.R.C. No.14/2017 in (Crime No.746/2016-H-4, Korukkupet Police Station) on the file of the Learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offence under Section 302  IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)

Complainant	The Inspector  of Police, H-4, Korrukupet Police Station, Chennai – 600 021. (Crime No.746/2016)
Name of the Accused	Thonthi Ganesh @ Ganesh, M/A.26/2016, S/o. Pillaiyar
Offence charges	Section 302  IPC
Plea of accused	Not guilty
Finding	In the result the accused is found guilty as charged for the offence under Section 302  I.P.C.

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Sentence

Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as below; (i)          to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a  Fine of Rs.10000 /-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS, under Section 302 IPC; (ii)        the period already undergone by the accused from 08.09.2016 to 18.05.2017, 28.06.2017 to 03.10.2017 and from 30.11.2018 to till date, less the period from 13.02.2019 to 17.02.2019 during which period the accused escape from custody and surrendered on 18.02.2019,  shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.;

Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution has marked M.Os. 1 to 15.  The case properties M.O.1-Blood stained silver plate­2, M.O.2-Blood stained cement floor piece, M.O.3Sample cement floor piece, M.O.4­ Blood stained cement plaster on the wall, M.O.5­Sample plaster on the wall, M.O.7­Blood stained cement Road piece, M.O.8­Sample cement road piece, M.O.9­Blood stained sandal colour full hand shirt­1, M.O.10­Blue colour jeans pant­1, M.O.11­Blood stained knife­1, M.O.12­Blood stained white colour saree-1, M.O.13-

J.F.No. 61 – Page

			blood stained white colour blouse-1, M.O.14-blood stained white colour bra-1 and M.O.15-blood stained red colour inskirt are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal. M.O.6-LAVA MODEL iris atomx cellphone-1 that belongs to the deceased is ordered to be returned to her legal heir after due enquiry on filing separate petition by them claiming M.O.6 within six month after the expiry of appeal time, if their be any appeal, after the expiry of appeal. If there be no claimant within such period, M.O.6 is ordered to be confiscated to the state.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or 357A Cr.P.C			Perused the oral and documentary evidence. A grave offence is committed as the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi. Her life is taken off by the  accused. She is a widower at the time of occurrence. There is no materials to show that the deceased was having any issues at the time of occurrence and that there were dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime. Hence, no orders recommending compensation under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. is passed.
Description of the accused
Seri al No.	Name	Father’s Name	Caste or race	Occupation	Residence	Age
1.	Thonthi Ganesh @ Ganesh	Pillaiyar	Hindu		No.417 A/3, Aaruthathiyar Street, Muthusamypuram, Mugavur, Rajapalayam (Taluk), Viruthunagar (Dist).	26/2016

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Date of	Occurrence	08.09.2016
	Complaint-Final Report	22.02.2017
	Apprehension or appearance	08.09.2016, Rearrest 28.06.2017, rearrest 30.11.2018
	Released on bail	18.05.2017 (As per the Order’s of XV Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.5028/2016 dated 21.12.2016) 03.10.2017 (As per the Order’s of the Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.12157/2017 dated  16.08.2018) Escaped custody from 13.02.2019 to 17.02.2019
	Commitment	27.02.2017
	Commencement of Trial	12.05.2017
	Close of trial	29.03.2022
	Sentence or Order	11.04.2022
	Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused	11.04.2022
Explanation of delay		Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant		Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused		M/s. Usha Rani and A. Vatsala

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

 

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE,  MAHALIR

NEETHIMANDRAM

ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.

 

   Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,

Sessions Judge,

 Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai-03

Dated, Monday, the 11^th day of April 2022

2053? jpUts;Sh; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 28k; ehs;  jp’;fl;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No.: 68/2017

( CNR NO. TNCH01-002779-2017 )

The Inspector  of Police, H-4, Korrukkupet Police Station, Chennai – 600 021.

(Crime No.746/2016)   … Complainant

– Vs. –

Thonthi Ganesh @ Ganesh, M/A.26/2016,

S/o. Pillaiyar,

No.417 A/3, Aaruthathiyar Street,

Muthusamypuram, Mugavur,

Rajapalayam (Taluk), Viruthunagar (Dist).                               … Accused

This Sessions case is taken on file on 13.03.2017 and came up on

29.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of  Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,

B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of M/s. Usha Rani and

1. Vatsala, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both

….2.

sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered  the following:

JUDGMENT

Final Report:

1. The Inspector of Police (Crimes) H4 Korukkupet Police Stationhas laid a final report before the Committal Court of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, alleging that on 08.09.2016 at about 11.30 A.M. in the house of the deceased Tmt. Lakshmi, situated at No.58/11, west Krishnappa Gramani Garden 2^nd Street, Korukkupet, Chennai, the accused stabbed/cut the deceased on her neck with a Knife and caused her death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. It is alleged that the accused was having acquaintance with one lady Tmt. Megala, to whom he had given Rs.80,000/-. Later the said

Tmt.Megala severed her relationship with the accused. Knowing that the said Tmt.Megala was close with the deceased Tmt. Lakshmi, a week prior to the occurrence, the accused went to the place of the deceased and asked her to disclose the whereabouts of Tmt.Megala, and threatened her that he would come in the next week and if she fails,  he would do away with her. On 08.09.2016 at about 11.30 A.M. the accused went to the house of the deceased and asked

….3.

about the whereabouts of Tmt.Megala. When the deceased told that she does not know and warned him that she will report to Police if he comes once again asking for Tmt.Megala, the accused with the intention to kill her, took a Knife hidden from his hip and stabbed/cut the neck of the deceased and ran out of her house. The deceased followed the accused holding to her neck screaming that the accused has stabbed/cut her. Hearing her scream,  her sister’s daughter

Tmt.Selvi came and took her to the Hospital, where despite treatment she died. Hence the final report.

3. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the offence by the Committal Court and on producing the accused from judicial custody, the copies of all the documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused by the Committal Court in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, vide Order dated 27.02.2017 in P.R.C. No. 14/2017  has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Chennai, and committed the accused to be produced before the Sessions Court.

The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session

….4.

Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.

4. Appearance of accused and framing of charges: Upon the accused being produced from judicial custody and in the presence of his Counsel, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC.  When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty.  Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
5. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 26 witnesses cited, 15 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.18 and Material Objects  O.1 to M.O.15 are marked on the side of the prosecution.

….5.

6. The facts as set-out through the oral and documentary evidences produced on the side of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:-
   • W.1/Tmt. Selvi is the sister’s daughter of the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi P.W.2/Tmt.Devi is the one of the sister of the deceased. P.W.3/Tr.Dilli Babu is the son-in-law of the sister of the deceased. P.W.1 is residing at No.9A, West Krishnappa Gramani Garden, 2nd Street, Korukkupet, Chennai. The deceased also residing in the same street at No.58/11, West Krishnappa Gramani Garden 2^nd Street, Korrukupet, Chennai, P.W.2 is residing 4 houses away from the house of deceased.
   • A week before the date of occurrence (i.e.,08.09.2016), when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were at the house of the deceased, the accused came there and threatened the deceased to tell the whereabouts of one Tmt.Megala. The deceased has told that she does not know. But, the accused warned her that he will return in a week’s time and that she has to tell the whereabouts of Tmt.Megala.
   • On 08.09.2016 P.W.2/Tmt.Devi along with the deceased went to the temple. After they returned from temple, P.W.2 seen off the

….6.

deceased and went to her house. P.W.9/Tr.Ramu, who runs a steel work shop in that area, went to have tea at about 11.00 a.m. At that time he saw the accused was following the deceased. Thereafter, he went to his work shop.

• After reaching home, the deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and collected some Milk and went to her house. Within 10 minutes time the deceased came out screaming that the accused Ganesh had cut her neck and shouting to catch him. The deceased was bleeding from her neck and her Saree was blood stained. P.W.9/Tr.Ramu, also heard the scream of the deceased and when he came out, he saw the accused running with a knife. He was told that the accused stabbed the deceased and fleeing away. P.W.1 came out and saw the deceased, who told her that the accused has stabbed her. She along with  other neighbours took the deceased and rushed to the hospital in an Auto-Rickshaw.
• W.3/Tr.Dillibabu, husband of P.W.1, at about 11 a.m. had returned home after finishing work at the Steel Workshop. He heard the deceased screaming for help and running out of her house. He also came out and saw the deceased being taken in an Auto. He was told that one Ganesh and stab the deceased and ran away.

….7.

• W.4/Tr.Meganathan, is a neighbour to the deceased. At about 10.55 a.m., he returned from work in his two wheeler and went inside his house for changing to lungi. He also heard the barking of the dog and came out. He saw the accused running out from the house of the deceased. Following him the deceased came running holding to her neck and was telling something to her sister’s daughter (P.W.1). He along with P.W.1 and one Tr.Ajith took the deceased in Auto to M.K. Nursing Home. As they refused to attend to the deceased, they took her to Stanley Government Hospital.
• At the same time, P.W.5/Tr.Krishnamurthy, who resided at New

Washermenpet, Chennai, on 08.09.2016 came to see his friend Tr.Gunasekaran at his work shop at K.G. Garden, 2nd Street. At about 11.00 A.M. when he was coming, he saw the accused running with a blood stained knife. Immediately, he also saw the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi coming out with bleeding on her neck shouting to catch the accused Ganesan. Hearing it, P.W.5 along with others tried to catch the accused and chased him through Veera Kutty Street and T.H.Road. But, the accused made good his escape and they could not catch him. When he returned, he saw the deceased being taken to the hospital.

….8.

• Similarly, P.W.6/Tr.Rajendran, who resides in Old Washermenpet, was driving his Auto to pick up a customers one Tr.Moorthi, who called him to come. When he was driving the Auto from Mayor Basudev Street towards Veera Kutty Street, he saw the accused running with a knife. Some people were chasing him. Seeing them, he stopped his auto. Soon, those person returned and told that they could not catch the accused. The deceased Tmt.Lakshmi was found injured. She was taken in another Auto to Stanley Government Hospital. P.W.6 took some 4 to 5 persons in his Auto following them to the Stanley Government Hospital.
• While P.W.1 was taking the deceased to Stanley Government Hospital in the auto-rickshaw, on the way to the Hospital she asked the deceased as to what happened, the deceased told to P.W.1 that the accused Ganesh came and asked about Tmt.Megala and when she told that she does not know, the accused assaulted her with the Knife on her neck and when she blocked him he also cut her on her left finger.
• When P.W.1 and other took the deceased to the Hospital, P.W.13/Dr.Ganesh was working as Casualty Medical officer at

Stanley Government Hospital. On 08.09.2016 at about 12.10 P.M.,

….9.

PW.13 examined the deceased brought by P.W.1/Tmt.Selvi with the history of assault by an unknown person with Knife at her residence at about 11.45 A.M. When P.W.13 examined the deceased she was unconsciousness. There was laceration injuries 4 x 3 x 3 c.m. on the left neck and another injuries 1.5 x 2 x 1 c.m. on her head and an injury 3 x 1 x 1 c.m on the left hand. He admitted the patient at ward No. 407 for further treatment and issued the AccidentRegister, marked as Ex-P.11. In th Accident Register, the 2nd injury on the head mentioned by P.W.13 is struck off.

• W.14/Dr. Shanmugam was then working as Medical officer at

Stanley Government Hospital. He examined the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi, who was admitted for treatment in the no delay treatment ward. The patient was unconsciousness and multiple stab injuries on her body and neck was noted. He tried to revive the patient by giving necessary medical treatment. However, the deceased died and at 12.20 a.m.  So, he declared the death and issued Ex-P.12/Death-intimation to the Police.

• Soon, after the doctor declared that the deceased has dead,

P.W.1/Tmt.Selvi, went to the Police Station and lodged the

Complaint/Ex-P.1. P.W.15/Tr. Amal Stanley Anand (I.O.), who was

….10.

 

then working as Inspector of Police, H-4 Korukkupet Police, received the Complaint given by P.W.1 and registered a case in

Crime No.746/16, under Section 302 IPC. Ex-P.13 is the printed First Information Report (FIR).

6.13. P.W.15(I.O.) took up the case for investigation, went to the place of the occurrence situated at No.58/11, west Krishnappa Gramani Garden 2^nd Street, Korrukupet, Chennai, and in the presence of witnesses P.W.7/Tr.Yuva Raj and Tr. Varathan, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex-P.2 and Rough-sketch/Ex-P.14. Further, in the presence of same witnesses he collected and seized the blood stained Two Ever Silver

Plates(M.O.1); Blood stained Cement Floor pieces(M.O.2); Sample Cement floor pieces (M.O.3); Blood stained piece of Cement plaster on the wall(M.O.4); Sample Cement plaster on the wall (M.O.5) and a Lava Model mobile phone with Reliance and Aircel SIM cards and Memory card along with Battery (M.O.6) Further he collected the Blood stained piece of Cement on the road (M.O.7) and Sample Cement piece on the road (M.O.8), all under the cover of a Recovery-mahazars/Ex-P.3 to Ex-P.6.

….11.

6.14. P.W.7/Tr.Yuva Raj has deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.15 regarding the preparation of the observation magazar and the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 8 from the place of occurrence.

6.15. Further, on the same day, P.W.15 (I.O.) proceeded to Stanley Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi in the presence of Panchayadars and prepared the Inquest-Report/Ex-P.15. Thereafter he gave a requisition for conducting the Post-Mortem. He further examined the witnesses P.W.1/Tmt. Devi, P.W.4/Meganathan,  Tr.Ajith, P.W.5/

Tr.Krishnamurthy, Tr. Gajenthran and recorded to their statements.

Further he examined Doctor P.W.13/Tr.Ganesh and

P.W.14/Dr.Shanmugam and recorded their statements.

6.16. On the same day of occurrence i.e., 08.09.2016 at about 20.00 hours, P.W.15 (IO) arrest to the accused near Toll Gate Bus Depot and recorded the voluntary confession given by the accused in the presence of witnesses P.W.8/Tr.Jeganathan and Tr.Prabu. The accused gave a disclosure statement to produce the blood stained knife and his blood stained cloths from the place of hiding within his knowledge. Accordingly the accused took them No.661, T.H. Road near a bush opposite to Jain Tubes Shop, and identified and

….12.

produced his blood stained shirt (M.O.9), his blood stained Jeans pant (M.O.10) and a blood stained Knife (M.O.11). They were seized by P.W.15 (IO) in the presence of the same witnesses under the Recovery-Mahazar/Ex-P.8. The Ex-P.7 is the admissible portion of the disclosure statement that lead to the recovery of of the material objects M.Os. 9 to 11.  Thereafter, the accused along with the seized properties were brought to the Police Station and the accused was sent for Remand. All the case properties seized by P.W.15 (I.O.) were sent to the Court. P.W.8/Tr.Jeganathan, has deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.14 regarding the arrest, confession and the recovery made from the accused.

6.17. Thereafter, P.W.15 (IO) once again went to the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses Tr. Kumar, Tr. Elumalai, Tr. Sampath (P.W.10), Tr. Ashok,  Tr, Ramesh (P.W.11), Tr. Ramu (P.W.9) and recorded their statements.

6.18. P.W.10/ Tr.Sampath, did not support the prosecution regarding the extra-judicial confession given by the accused and requesting monitory help to escape from police. He has stated that a week before the occurrence the accused asked for money and he said he doesn’t have money. Later, he was enquired by the police about the

….13.

accused and he identified him as his acting driver. P.W.10 is treated hostile.

6.19. P.W.11/Tr.Ramesh has deposed that he knew the accused who was worked as acting driver for his friend Tr.Sampath. That on the date of occurrence, the accused came in share auto and alighted near the auto stand. He saw the accused was tensed and he was wearing a baniyan and was keeping his shirt in his hand. Later, he came to know that the accused has committed a murder.

6.20. On the next date, 09.09.2016, P.W.12/Dr.Priya Dharshini then

Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine at Stanley

Government Hospital, based on the requisition given by P.W.15

(IO), conducted the Post-Mortem on the body of the deceased

Tmt.Lakshmi at about 10.40 A.M. and gave the Post-Mortem

Report/Ex-P.10, which read as below;

“The body was first Seen by the undersigned at 10.40 A.M. on 09.09.2016. its condition then was Rigor mortis present allover the body. Post Mortem commenced at 10.40 A.M.on 09.09.2016. Appearances found at the Post- Mortem: Moderately nourished female body with the following antemortem injuries:

….14.

1. Horizontal stab wound of size 4 x 0.2 x 3 cm on the upper part ofthe left side of the neck; outer margin of the wound was found 5cm below left mastoid process; inner margin was 10 cm lateral to the midline of the neck; both ends of the stab wound was acute; the direction of the stab wound was downwards and to the left; on further dissection: the subcutenous soft tissues, muscles and jugular vein and caroid artery was found severed along the plane of the external wound.
2. Horizontal stab wound 8 x 0.2 x 3 cm on the left palm, in the gapbetween left thumb and left index finger; both margins of the stab wound was acute; superficial skin between the thumb and index finger was found intact; the underlying soft tissues and muscles were found severed along the plane of external wound.

 Heart: Normal in size; c/s: Chambers were empty; valves and great vessels: Normal; coronaries: Patent.

Lungs: Normal in size; c/s: pale

Larynx and trachea: empty

Hyoid bone: Intact

Stomach: Contained 600 grams of brownish partly digested cooked rice particles with no definite smell; mucosa: pale.

Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S. Pale.

Bladder: Empty. Pelvis and Spinal column: Intact.

Uterus: 7 x 6 x 2 cm; c/s: cavity empty.

….15.

Scalp, Vault and dura: Intact; brain: Normal in size; C/S: pale. (Viscera preserved for chemical analysis)

Opinion:   The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury to the neck

(Time since death 18 – 24 hours prior to postsmortem).

6.21. The viscera preserved was sent to forensic laboratory and the toxicology report in Ex-P.9 is received with the finding that no poison was detected.

6.22. On 09.09.2016 after the Post-Mortem was completed, Gr-I Police

Constable Tr. Srinivasan produce the cloths of the deceased, namely

M.O.12/Saree; M.O.13/Blouse; M.O.14/Brassiere and M.O.15/

Inskirt, at the police station. P.W.15 (IO)  seized the same under Form- 95/Ex-P.16 and sent them to Court.

6.23. Further, P.W.15 (IO) gave a requisition to send the seized material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the report were received in Court. Ex-P.17 is the Biology Report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory with a finding that blood was detected in M.Os 9 to 11, the knife and dress seized from the accused, M.Os.1, 2,  4 and 7 that were seized from the place of

….16.

occurrence and in M.Os.12 to 15 the dresses of the deceased seized from the body of the deceased.

6.24. Ex-P.18 is one Serology Report for blood grouping given by the

Forensic Science Laboratory Department to the Professor of Forensic Science Report Stanley Government Hospital that the blood stain taken from the body of the deceased in a gauze cloth is of the blood group ‘O’.

6.25. Further, the another Serology Report in Ex-P.18 is given with the finding that Human Blood was detected in the knife and dresses (M.O.9 to 11) seized from the accused, but the result of blood grouping test is inconclusive.

6.26. Further, human blood was detected in M.O.1(Plates) and M.O.2

(plaster pieces) but the result of blood grouping test is inconclusive. Further the blood grouping in the plaster piece M.O.4 and M.O.7 are disintegrated and the nature of blood and grouping could not be found. Further human blood group ‘O’ was detected in the dresses of the deceased in M.O.’s 12 to 15.

6.27. P.W.15(I.O.) after collecting the above materials examined the witnesses and recorded the statement of Doctor Tmt.Priya

….17.

Dharshini, who conducted post-mortem and the other witnesses. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and laid the final report against the accused for the offence u/s.302 IPC.

6.28. With the examination of the above witnesses, the prosecution rested its evidence.

Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and  his  defence:

7. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused were put to the accused and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same as false. His defence is that “இறநநதவவந யவவந எனநறற ததவதயவத   . எனகநகமந இநதந  வழகநகதறநகமந எநதந  சமநபநநதமமந கதடடயவத .  நவனந நதந தமனநறததநதலந எனனந தசவலநல றவணநடமந எனநற தசவலநலத தகவடததந     அடதநதவவநகளந”
8. Though the accused reported that he got defence witnesses, he didn’t examine any witnesses and closed his defence.
9. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for

determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under section 302 of IPC,  beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

….18.

  On the Point :

10. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. Further written argument filed on the side of the accused.
11. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the oral and documentary evidence in details. On careful examination of the evidence, the identity of the deceased is not denied are disputed during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1/Tmt.Selvi is the sister’s daughter of the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi. She has clearly identified the deceased as her mother’s sister. P.W.2/Tmt.Devi is the blood sister of the deceased. She has also identified the deceased. Apart from that P.W.3/Tr.Dillibabu, husband of P.W.1 and P.W.4/Tr.Meganathan, a neighbour of the deceased, have also identified the deceased. During crossexamination of these witnesses the accused has not denied the identity of the deceased. Further, the inquest-report in Ex-P.15 would also prove that the deceased is Tmt.Lakshmi.
12. The injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi is proved by the prosecution by producing medical evidence. P.W.13/Dr.Ganesh and P.W.14/Dr.Shanmugam have attended the

….19.

deceased when brought to Stanley Government Hospital on the date of occurrence 08.9.2016 at about 12.10 a.m. The deceased was found with injuries on her neck and hand. Despite treatment the deceased was declared dead at 12.20 p.m. Ex-P.11/Accident-register and Ex-P.13/Death intimation would vouch these facts.

13. Further, P.W.12/Dr.Priyadarshini, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Post-mortem report in Ex-P.10. The nature of injuries found in the post-mortem report mentioned supra and the opinion of PW.12 would clearly established that the deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury caused on the neck. The opinion of P.W.12 is not challenged by way of cross-examination on the side of the accused. Hence, it is established that the death is caused due to stab injuries sustained by the deceased on her neck.
14. To prove the charge against the accused the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator who caused fatal injuries that lead to the death of the deceased. There is no eye witness on the side of the prosecution who had directly seen the accused stabbing the deceased. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and 9 who have seen the accused running out from the house of the deceased with blood stained knife and the deceased following him

….20.

by screaming to catching the accused and saying that the accused Ganesh has stabbed her. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.1 while taken to hospital in the Autorickshaw. It is submitted on the side of the prosecution that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 9 are clear and consistent to prove the above fact regarding the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and the complicity of the accused. It is further submitted that the blood stained knife and dresses seized from the accused based on his disclosure statement would further establish the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the contradiction and inconsistencies pointed out on the side of the accused are not material and likely to occurrence due to lapse of time and fading memory. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

15. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused vehemently challenged the reliability of the oral dying declaration and the evidence of the prosecutions witness and contended that the prosecution case is perfunctory and tainted and it is contradictory to the core facts. The learned Counsel for the accused further contended that the complaint is not given immediately and that P.W.1 has mentioned that she dictated the complaint which was written by a person in the police station, but P.W.15 (I.O.) would state that he received a written complaint, so, it is submitted that the complaint is belated and

….21.

fabricated. Further, it is submitted that P.W.1 has deposed that she saw the accused at the police station and identified him as the person who came a week before and threatened the deceased. Furthermore, it is submitted that when the deceased was taken to the hospital she was unconscious and the history of assault narrated to P.W.13/Dr.Ganesan is that the deceased was assaulted by an unknown person. Further he submitted that P.W.1 would admit that the deceased was unconscious when she saw the deceased. So, it is contended that P.W.1 could not have seen the accused and the deceased could not have given the oral dying declaration and that she was not aware of the assailant when the deceased was taken to the hospital. Hence, it is contended that it causes doubt upon the prosecution case.

16. Further it is contended on the side of the accused that the remaining witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.6 and P.W.9 are hearsay witnesses and they are not reliable to prove the occurrence. Furthermore, it is submitted that the arrest and recovery is not proved as there is contradiction as to where and when the accused was arrested and P.W.8, the witness for confession and recovery, has deposed that he affixed his signature at the police station. Therefore he submitted these witnesses cannot be relied upon. Hence it is submitted that the prosecution has not prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

….22.

17. Upon considering the rival contentions and examining the oral and documentary evidence, as submitted on the side of the accused there is no direct witness who had seen the accused stabbing the deceased. But, there is ample evidence to prove that on the date and time of occurrence the accused was seen running out of the house of the accused with blood stained knife and that the deceased came behind him hallooing that the accused stabbed and to catch him. This evidence produced on the side of the prosecution will fall within the category of res gestae evidence that is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act along with the illustration (a), which reads as below:
18. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. –– Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

18. As per the illustration (a) given under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, whatever said by or done by the deceased or the by standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. In the case on hand, the prosecution has produced ample materials to bring in the fact proved within Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The law

….23.

on the admissibility and reliability of the res gestae evidence is laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in  (2013) 12 SCC 17 [State of Maharashtra Vs.Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and others] , wherein it is held that:

“38.In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao V. State of A.P, wherein this Court held that the principle of law embodied in Section 6 of the Evidence Act is expressed as “res gestae”. The rule of “res gestae”, it was held, is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale of making certain statements or facts admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, it was pointed out, was on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the “fact in issue”. And thereafter, such facts or statements are treated as a part of the same transaction. In other words, to be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, such statement must have been made contemporaneously with the fact in issue, or at least immediately thereupon and in conjunction therewith. If there is an interval between the fact in issue and the fact sought to be proved then such statement cannot be described as falling in the “res gestae” concept.

……In our considered view, the test to determine admissibility under the rule of “res gestae” is embodied in words “are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction”. It is therefore, that for describing the concept of “res gestae”, one would need to examine whether the fact is such as can be described by use of words/phrases such as, “contemporaneously arising out of the occurrence”, “actions having a live link to the fact”, “acts perceived as a part of the occurrence”, exclamations (of hurt, seeking help, of disbelief, of cautioning, and the like) arising out of the fact, spontaneous reactions to a fact, and the like. It is difficult for us to describe Illustration (a)

….24.

under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, specially in conjunction with the words “are so connected with a fact in issue as to form a part of the same transaction”, in a manner differently from the approach characterized above”.

19. On examining the evidence in the light of the above position of law, P.W.1/Tmt.Selvi would clearly deposed that on the date of occurrence i.e. 08.09.2016 the deceased return from temple and came to her house, the deceased took milk from her and went to her home, thereafter 10 minutes later she heard the hallooing of the deceased, who came out of her house keeping her hands on her neck and shouting that the accused Ganesh has cut her neck. P.W.1 would further depose that she with the help of the neighbours took her aunt (deceased) to the hospital and when she asked the deceased in the Auto, she told that it was the person who previously came and threatened the deceased asked her to tell the address of one Megala and when she said she does not know, the accused stabbed him. P.W.1 has further identified the accused as the said Ganesh who is the person who came a week before the occurrence to the house of the deceased and threatened her to tell the whereabouts of one Megala. Thus the deceased coming out of her house screaming with bleeding injuries and saying that she was assaulted by the accused Ganesan shortly after she was

….25.

inflicted with the injures with fall within the ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act.

20. The evidence of P.W.1 is material corroborated by P.W.2, the sister of the deceased. She had clearly deposed that on the date of occurrence i.e. 08.09.2016 she along with the deceased went to the temple and return back. After she went home, she was informed over phone that her sister (deceased) was stabbed by some one. She has further deposed that she asked P.W.1 at the hospital, where P.W.1 narrated the incident by saying that the accused who previous came and threatened the deceased has stabbed her with the knife. She would further state that the deceased has a given a statement to P.W.1 in the auto while taken to hospital, which further corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased gave a oral dying declaration implicating the accused.
21. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is further materially corroborated by P.W.3/Tr.Dillibabu, the husband of P.W.1. He states that on 08.09.2016 at about 11.00 a.m. when he was at home he heard the shouting of the deceased who was running out of her house. When he came out, he saw the deceased was been taken to the hospital by his wife, P.W.1 and two others. At that time he was informed that one Ganesh has stab the deceased. This evidence would fall within the purview of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act as it was stated to him by the by standers soon after the occurrence.

….26.

22. W.4/Tr.Meganathan is another witness to the occurrence. He would also identify the accused and depose that on 08.11.2016 at about 10.55 a.m., he came to his house and parked two wheeler, he went inside his house and was changing dress, he heard the dog barking, when he came outside he saw the accused running out of the house of the deceased and the deceased was following him holding to her neck. He would further state that deceased was telling something to her sister’s daughter (P.W.1). This evidence of P.W.4 further established the presence of accused soon after the occurrence and the evidence regarding the deceased coming behind the accused after the incident with injuries on her neck. This evidence of P.W.4 is no cross-examined and not challenged by the accused.
23. The factum of the accused escaping from the house of the

deceased after attacking her is further spoken by a chance witnesses on the road. P.W.5/Tr. Krishnamurthy has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about

11.00 a.m. along with his friend Tr. Rajendren he went to see another friend Tr. Gunasekar, at the time he saw the accused coming with a blood stained knife. He would further deposed that behind him the deceased came with bleeding on her neck and holding her neck and she was shouting to catch Ganesh. He would further state that he tried to catch the accused but he escape. He has also identified the accused as the person seen by him on the date of occurrence. He

….27.

would strongly confirm the same by reiterating that when he first saw the deceased at the place of occurrence, he saw the deceased coming out holding to her neck and shouting ‘catch Ganesan, catch Ganesan’. Thus the evidence of

P.W.1 to 4 is fully corroborated by P.W.5. There is no material to show that P.W.5 has got any axe to grind against the accused to given a false statement against him.

24. W.6/Tr. Rajendren is another auto-driver, who saw the accused running with a knife in his hand while he was driving his auto near the place of occurrence. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and others regarding the accused was running with a knife and the inspite others trying to catch him he escape and that the deceased was taken in another auto to hospital and he along with others went in his auto to the Hospital following the deceased. His evidence is not challenged by the accused and not cross-examined.
25. One another important evidence is that of P.W.9/Tr.Ramu. He has seen the accused following the deceased when she was returning home from the temple. He has deposed that on 08.9.2016 when he went to take tea in a shop, at about 11.00 a.m. he saw the accused following the deceased and then the went to his workshop. Thereafter, he heard hallooing noise and when he came and saw, the accused was running with a knife. When he asked, he was told that the accused is running after stabbing the deceased and that he saw the

….28.

deceased bleeding. His evidence is not shaken in any manner during cross examination. In fact he has strongly confirmed what he has deposed in his chiefexamination.  There is no material to show any animosity for him to depose falsely against the accused.

26. The above evidence let-in through P.Ws.1 to 6 and 9 would clearly established the facts regarding the accused escaping from the house of the deceased with the blood stained knife. They also further established that the deceased came out screaming and shouting that the accused is escaping after assaulting her and to catch the accused. Thus the testimony of P.W.1 to 6 and 9 are spontaneous and immediate. The deceased having suffered neck injury, she was courageous to expose her assailant, by following the accused when he escaped and identify him. The witnesses have deposed what the deceased told immediately after the occurrence and their evidence is so contemporaneous in nature forming part of the same transaction and closely connected with the “fact in issue”. Hence the above materials are relevant under Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act and would clearly establish the identity of the accused and his complicity in causing the injuries to the deceased.
27. The preparation of Ex-P.2/Observation-magazhar and ExP.14/Rough Sketch by P.W.15 (I.O.) and the recovery of blood stained materials from the place of occurrence, namely M.O.1-blood stained two silver plates;

….29.

M.O.2-blood stained cement floor piece; M.O.3-sample cement floor piece; M.O.4-blood stained cement plaster on the wall; M.O.5-sample cement plaster on the wall; M.O.7-blood stained cement road piece and M.O.8-sample cement road piece, from inside the house of the deceased and on the street is corroborated and prove by P.W.7. The fact of recovering the blood stained materials both from inside and outside the house and on the street, along with the description of the place of occurrence in Ex-P.2/Observation-Magazhar and Ex-P.14/Rough-sketch, would corroborated the oral evidence that the deceased came out from her house with bleeding injuries. Hence, the oral evidence of the witnesses that the deceased came out running behind the accused with bleeding injuries can be believed and relied upon to prove the prosecution case.

28. The fact that the deceased was taken to the Hospital by P.W.1 soon after the occurrence is corroborated and proved by Dr. Ganesh who was testify that on 08.09.2016 at about 12.10 p.m. the deceased was brought by P.W.1/Tmt. Selvi. The deceased has given an oral dying declaration to P.W.1 implicating the accused as the assailant. However, in Ex-P.11/Accident Register it is recorded that the decease was brought the history of assault by an unknown person. Based on such version found in Ex-P.11 (Accident Register), it is contended that the assailant was not know to P.W.1 when the deceased was taken to hospital and that she has identified the accused only after seeing in the

….30.

police station. Further, it is contended that the deceased could not have made a statement as she was unconscious.

29. On perusing the medical evidence through P.W.13/Dr.Ganesh, who recorded Ex-P.11/Accident-register and P.W.14/Dr.Shanmugam, who treated the deceased, would established that the deceased had sustained injuries on her neck which was fatal and that the deceased has died at 12.20 p.m. despite medical attention. No doubt, the deceased was unconscious when she was brought to the hospital. But P.W.14/Dr.Shamugam, would opine that “நவனந தசவனநன கததந கவயஙநகளந ஏறநபடநடவலந எவநவளவ றநரமந ஒர நபரந சயநதடனவடனந      இரகநகமடயமந எனநறவலந அத எநநத ரதநதகநகழவயதலந கவயமந ஏறநபடநடளநளறதவ அடத       தபவறததந அடமயமந. நவனந தசவனனந  கவயஙநகளதனநபட அநநத நபவந சமவரந    5 லதரநதந 10 நதமதடமந வடர சயநதடனவடனந இரநதநதரபநபவவந. கழததநதலந ஏறநபடநட கததநகவயதநதவலந அநநத நபரவலந றபசமடயமவ எனநறவலந சயநதடனடவ இழநநத பதறக

றபசமடயவத.”  Thus in the light of the opinion given by P.W.14 it would clearly established that the prosecution version that soon after the occurrence the deceased was able to come out of the house and speak about the assault made on her by the accused with the knife. Further, it is also possible for the deceased to have made a statement to P.W.1 when she was taken to the hospital in the Autorickshaw. The oral dying declaration is admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. The medical opinion given by P.W.14 would established that even

….31.

after sustaining such injuries, up to 5 to 10 minutes the deceased would have been able to speak. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and 9 regarding the deceased running outside narrating the incident inspires the confidence of this Court and can be believed and acted upon.

30. It is contended that P.W.1 would admit during cross-examination that when she saw the deceased with injuries the deceased was unconscious. There is reliable evidence from the other witnesses discussed supra to show that the deceased came out of the house with bleeding injuries and was able to speak and narrate the incident and screaming to catch the accused. So, the statement of P.W.1 during cross-examination must be based on misconceived question. In fact, P.W.1 is chief examined on 19.9.2017. She is not cross-examined on the same date. P.W.1 is recalled and cross-examined on 20.11.2019 after two years. So, there is possibility of inconsistency due to fading memory and due to misconceiving the question. By the time the deceased was taken to the hospital she has lost conscious. So, P.W.1 having clearly stated in  her examination in chief that the deceased made a statement to her, may be due to misconceiving the question could have answered so after a lapse of two years. Hence, in the light of the medical opinion given by P.W.14 and the other attending facts and circumstance, the possibility of the deceased giving a dying declaration to P.W.1 can be believe and acted upon.

….32.

31. Coming to the contention on the side of the accused regarding the identity of the assailant mentioned as unknown in Ex-P.11/Accident-register, no doubt P.W.1 has taken the deceased to the hospital. But, P.W.13/Dr.Ganesan has not stated as to who gave the history of assault. According to P.W.1 she along with some other neighbours took the deceased to the hospital. There is no evidence that the history was narrated to the doctor by P.W.1. Furthermore, the alleged contradiction is not prove by bringing it to the notice of P.W.1 during cross-examination as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.. P.W.1 is not cross examined in this regard on the side of the accused. But for the fact the P.W.1 has taken the deceased to the hospital as recorded in Ex-P.11, there is no material to prove that the history of assault was narrated by P.W.1 to the doctor. Further, the occurrence has taken place at around 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. Soon thereafter the deceased is taken to hospital by 12.10 p.m. and she died at the hospital at 12.20 p.m. At 1.00 p.m. P.W.1 has lodged a complaint in Ex-P.1. Based on which Ex-P.13/F.I.R is registered at 01.00 p.m. on the same day. It has reached the Court without any delay at 5.10 p.m. on the same day.
32. W.1 would clearly state that she went to the police station and gave a complaint and a person present their wrote it and she affixed her signature after reading it. On perusing Ex-P.1/Complaint and Ex-P.13/FIR, it would established that the name of the accused finds place in the complaint and

….33.

F.I.R. The motive of the occurrence as well as the identity of the accused is also disclosed. The oral testimony of the witnesses placed before this Court is corroborated in all material particulars by the Complaint/Ex-P.1 and FIR/ExP.13. There is no contradiction or inconsistencies that would create doubt upon the complaint and FIR. Therefore, the possibility of fabrication is not established. Merely, because it was written by some out at the police station cannot be ground to doubt it.

33. Further, the complaint is lodged without delay and the possibility of fabrication is ruled out. In such circumstances, the doctor recording in the accident register that the deceased was brought with the history of assault by unknown person alone cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case when there are other strong and reliable materials to prove the occurrence and the complicity of the accused. After the occurrence panic and tension should have prevailed. May be due to such tensed and panic situation an error or mistake could have crept in while recording the accident register. Hence, the contention on the side the accused regarding the version found in the accident register alone cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution cases.
34. The motive for the occurrence is clearly proved by the

prosecution through the occurrence witnesses. The motive also finds place in the complaint. It is stated that a week prior to the occurrence the accused came

….34.

to the house of the deceased asking for the whereabouts of one Megala, to whom the accused has given Rs.80,000/-. After borrowing the money from the accused, the said Megala has severed her contacts and absconded. Therefore, the accused has approached the deceased to disclose the whereabouts of Megala. P.W.1 has stated that the accused came a week before to the house of the deceased and asked about Megala and warned the deceased that he will come back after the week and that the deceased should tell the address and so threatened the deceased. This is materially corroborated by the complaint/Ex-P.1 and F.I.R./Ex-P.13. On the date of occurrence, the deceased has informed P.W.1 that the accused came and ask for Megala and when she said she does not know, the accused stabbed her. So, the motive for the occurrence is also clearly established by the prosecution.

35. The Learned counsel for the accused contended that the Police have not investigated anything about the whereabouts of the Megala and she is not cited as a witness. Therefore, the very motive for the prosecution case is not established. This contention has no legs to stand. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused came asking for Megala. But, the deceased told him that she does not know about her whereabouts. As a consequence of it the accused has attacked the deceased. In such circumstances, the omission on the side of the prosecution to examine Megala as a witness does not cause any doubt upon the

….35.

prosecution case. Moreover, there other materials to prove the occurrence involving the complicity of the accused. Ex-P.15 inquest-report also narrate the role played by the accused in threatening the deceased prior to the occurrence and his participation on the date of occurrence. Ex-P.15 also corroborates and proved the prosecution case in material particulars. There is no material contradiction and inconsistencies that would discredit the above materials. Hence the none examination of Megala does not affect the prosecution case.

36. In addition to the above discussed materials to prove the complicity of the accused, the recovery of M.O.11 the blood stained knife

(weapon of assault) along with the blood stained shirt (M.O.9) and jeans pant (M.O.10) that belongs to the accused based on the disclosure statement given by the accused would further strengthen the prosecution case. Ex-P.7, the admissible portion of the confession statement is proved through P.W.8/Tr.Jeganathan, one of the witness for the confession and the recovery made by the Investigating Officer/P.W.15, Tr.Amal Stanley Anand. The contention on the side of the accused that P.W.8 would admit in crossexamination that he affixed his signature in the police station raised doubt cannot be sustained. Because, on perusing his evidence, the examination-inchief in made on 08.1.2019. The witness was not cross examined on the same date. He is recalled and crossed examined after a lapse of two years on

….36.

19.02.2021. So, due to fading memory there is possibility of P.W.8 saying so. So, it does not discredit the arrest and recovery. The evidence of P.W.15 investigating officer is reliable to prove the arrest and recovery unless it is prove to be untrustworthy. There is no such material to impeach or discredit the evidence of P.W.15. There is no material to show that P.W.15 knew the accused prior to this case and that there is any animosity or axe to grind against the accused. Hence, the unimpeccable evidence of evidence of  P.W.15 can be relied upon to prove the confession and recovery from  the accused.

37. Further, the materials M.Os.1 to 8 recovered from the place of occurrence, the materials produced by accused in M.Os 9 to 11 and the dresses worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence in M.O.12 to M.O.15 were all subjected to Forensic Science examination and the reports received would further prove the involvement of the accused.
38. Ex-P.17 is the Biology Report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory will prove that blood was detected in M.Os 9 to 11, the knife and dress seized from the accused, M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 7 that were seized from the place of occurrence and in M.Os.12 to 15, the dresses of the deceased seized from the body of the deceased.

….37.

39. Ex-P.18 the Serology Report would prove that the blood sample sent by the Professor of Forensic Medicine Department, Stanley Government Hospital taken from the body of the deceased in a gauze cloth is of the blood group ‘O’.
40. Further, the another Serology Report in Ex-P.18 would prove that Human Blood was detected in the knife (M.O.11) and dresses (M.Os.9 and 10) seized from the accused. But the result of blood grouping test is inconclusive. Further, human blood was detected in M.O.1(Plates) and M.O.2 (plaster pieces) but the result of blood grouping test is inconclusive. Further the blood grouping in the plaster piece M.O.4 and M.O.7 are disintegrated and the nature of blood and grouping could not be found. Further human blood group ‘O’ was detected in the dresses of the deceased in M.O.’s 12 to 15.
41. It is contended that the in the forensic examination the blood group is not determined in the knife and the dresses of the accused, so the recovery is not linked to the offence. In CDJ 2019 SC 875 (Balwan Singh & Another Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Another) in similar facts it is held that;

“12. The cases discussed above highlight the burden that the prosecution would ordinarily have to discharge, depending on the other facts and circumstances

….38.

of the case, for the evidence relating to recovery to be considered against the accused. At the same time, as mentioned above, we are conscious of the fact that it may not always be possible to inextricably link the bloodstains on the items seized in recovery to the blood of the deceased, due to the possibility of disintegration of bloodstains on account of the timelapse in carrying out the recovery. For this reason, in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127, where one of us (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J.) had the occasion to author the judgment, this Court, relying on Teja Ram (supra), had held that the failure to determine the blood group of the bloodstains collected from the scene of offence would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. In Prabhu Dayal case (supra), although the FSL report could not determine the blood group of the bloodstains on account of disintegration, the report clearly disclosed that the bloodstains were of human origin, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was completed by the testimonies of the other witnesses as well as the reports submitted by the Ballistic Expert and the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the weapon used to commit murder.

13. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The Court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.”

….39.

42. Thus, applying the above ratio to the facts on hand, mere failure to ascertain the blood group in knife and dresses recovered from the accused due to disintegration or otherwise cannot be a ground to reject the forensic report in its entirety. In fact, Ex-P.18 would prove that human blood was detected in the knife (M.O.11). In the absence of any material to show that the investigation was tainted, the prosecution has overwhelmingly established the link between the recovery and the crime. Thus the forensic report would further strengthen the complicity of the accused in committing the crime.
43. 10 is the employer of the accused with whom the accused has worked as acting driver. P.W.11 is the friend of P.W.10. They are examined to prove the extra-judicial confession. But, they have not supported the prosecution case. However, P.W.11 would deposed that the accused came in share auto and alighted near the auto stand. He saw the accused was tensed and he was wearing a baniyan and was keeping his shirt in his hand. Later, he came to know that the accused has committed a murder. This would be an added circumstance to prove that complicity of the accused.
44. Therefore, from the above discussed oral and documentary evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has clearly established the motive for the occurrence, the identity of the accused, the participation of the accused in committing the occurrence and the recovery of

….40.

blood stained knife used by the accused to commit the offence, by producing clear and cogent evidence which strongly prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The manner of occurrence and the injuries inflicted by the accused on the vital part of the body of the deceased, i.e. Neck, would establish his clear and unperturbed intention to cause death.

45. Hence, in the view of above discussed materials, this Court conclude that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The above point for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.
46. Result: In the result the accused is found guilty as charged for the offence under Section 302  P.C.

//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed and typed by her in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11^th day of April 2022// 

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

….41.

S.C No. 68/2017 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Thonthi Ganesh @ Ganesh)

Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 11.04.2022 at 1.30 p.m.

47. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;

எனகநகமந இதறநகமந சமநபநதந  மந இலடந ல. தபவயந வழகநக . மநநடதய வழகநக எதவமந இலடந ல.

48. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to 2.30 P.M. today.

Pronounced in open Court on this 11^th day of April, 2022.

 

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,       Chennai.

….42.

ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 68/2017 – DATED: 11.04.2022 AT

2.30  P.M.

49. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the offence is of grave nature. The aggravating circumstances overpower the mitigating circumstances. However, the case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare case. The mitigating circumstances would be that the accused would repent for their ghastly act and there is probability of his reformation in the long run. On perusal of records it reveals that the accused is an escaped convict while undergoing sentence is another case on the file of Rejapalayam Police Station. However, applying the law laid down in CDJ 2018

SC 1277 = 2019 AIR(SC) 1 (Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State Of Maharashtra), to the facts and circumstances and considering the probability for reformation and rehabilitation, this Court is of the view that this case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare case for imposing capital sentence.

50. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as below;

….43.

• to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a Fine of 10000 /-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS, under Section 302 IPC;
• the period already undergone by the accused from 08.09.2016 to 18.05.2017, 28.06.2017 to 03.10.2017 and from 30.11.2018 to till date, less the period from 13.02.2019 to 17.02.2019 during which period the accused escape from custody and surrendered on

18.02.2019,  shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.;

Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:

51. The prosecution has marked M.Os. 1 to 15. The case properties

M.O.1-Blood stained silver plate­2, M.O.2-Blood stained cement floor piece, M.O.3­Sample cement floor piece, M.O.4­ Blood stained cement plaster on the wall, M.O.5­Sample plaster on the wall, M.O.7­Blood stained cement Road piece, M.O.8­Sample cement road piece, M.O.9­Blood stained sandal colour full hand shirt­1, M.O.10­Blue colour jeans pant­1, M.O.11­Blood stained knife­1, M.O.12­Blood stained white colour saree-1, M.O.13-blood stained white colour blouse-1, M.O.14-blood stained white colour bra-1 and M.O.15blood stained red colour inskirt are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal. M.O.6-LAVA

….44.

MODEL iris atomx cellphone-1 that belongs to the deceased is ordered to be returned to her legal heir after due enquiry on filing separate petition by them claiming M.O.6 within six month after the expiry of appeal time, if their be any appeal, after the expiry of appeal. If there be no claimant within such period, M.O.6 is ordered to be  confiscated to the state.

Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.:

52. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. A grave offence is committed as the deceased Tmt.Lakshmi. Her life is taken off by the She is a widower at the time of occurrence. There is no materials to show that the deceased was having any issues at the time of occurrence and that there were dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime. Hence, no orders recommending compensation under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. is passed.

//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the  11^th day of April, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,                             Sessions  Judge,                      Mahalir Neethimandram,         Chennai.

List of Witnesses examined:

On the side of the prosecution:-

….45.

P.W.1	Tmt. Selvi (Sister’s daughter of the deceased)
P.W.2	Tmt. Devi (Sister of the deceased)
P.W.3	Tr. Dilli Babu
P.W.4	Tr. Meganathan
P.W.5	Tr. Krishnamurthy
P.W.6	Tr. Rajendran
P.W.7	Tr. Yuvaraj
P.W.8	Tr. Jeganathan
P.W.9	Tr. Ramu
P.W.10	Tr. Sampath
P.W.11	Tr. Ramesh
P.W.12	Dr. Priyadharshini (Post-mortem Doctor)
P.W.13	Dr. Ganesh (A.R. Doctor)
P.W.14	Dr. Shanmugam
P.W.15	Tr. Amal Stanly Anand (I.O.)

On the side of the accused:  Nil

List of Exhibits Marked

On the side of the prosecution:

Exhibit	Date	Particulars
Ex-P. 1	08.09.2016	Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2	08.09.2016	Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 3	08.09.2016	Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained silver plate­2, Blood stained cement floor piece and sample cement floor piece)
Ex-P. 4	08.09.2016	Seizure Mahazar ( Blood stained cement plaster on the wall and sample plaster on the wall)
Ex-P. 5	08.09.2016	Seizure Mahazar (Lava model iris atomx cellphone­1)

….46.

Ex-P.6	08.09.2016	Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained cement Road piece and sample cement road piece)
Ex-P.7	08.09.2016	Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.8	08.09.2016	Seizure Mahazar (blood stained shirt­1,  jeans pant­1 and blood stained knife­1)
Ex-P.9	26.09.2016	Toxicology Report (Tox.H. No.2226/2016)
Ex-P.10	09.09.2016	Post-Mortem Certificate (PM.No.1102/16)
Ex-P.11	08.09.2016	Accident Register (Sl.No.2379096)
Ex-P.12	08.09.2016	Death Intimation
Ex-P.13	08.09.2016	First Information Report (C 7556 135)
Ex-P.14	08.09.2016	Rough Sketch
Ex-P.15	08.09.2016	Inquest Report
Ex-P.16	09.09.2016	Form-95 (Blood stained white colour saree-1, blood stained white colour blouse-1, blood stained white colour bra-1 and blood stained red colour inskirt-1)
Ex-P.17	07.10.2016	Biological Report (T.No.7266/2016 BIOL 462/2016)
Ex-P.18 (Series)	27.12.2016	Two reports – Serology Report (T.No.7219/2016 SER’C121-2016) &  Serology Report (T.No.9611/2016 SER-1442016)

On the side of accused:   NIL

List of Material Objects Marked:

On the side of Prosecution:

Exhibit No.

Particulars

….47.

M.O.1	Blood stained silver plate­2
M.O.2	Blood stained cement floor piece
M.O.3	Sample cement floor piece
M.O.4	Blood stained cement plaster on the wall
M.O.5	Sample plaster on the wall
M.O.6	Lava model iris atomx cellphone­1
M.O.7	Blood stained Road piece
M.O.8	Sample road piece
M.O.9	Blood stained sandal colour full hand shirt­1
M.O.10	Blood stained blue colour jeans pant­1
M.O.11	Blood stained knife­1
M.O.12	Blood stained white colour saree-1
M.O.13	Blood stained white colour blouse-1
M.O.14	Blood stained white colour bra-1
M.O.15	Blood stained red colour inskirt-1

On the side of the Accused:   Nil

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                                  Chennai.                     // TRUE COPY //

 

Sessions  Judge,                                      Mahalir Neethimandram,         Chennai.

….48.