(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 Friday, the 24th day of February, 2023

by Sekar Reporter · March 2, 2023

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.
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No:179/2019
(CNR NO. TNCH0 – 015828 -2019)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.58/2018 in (Crime No.260/2018 F-1, Chindadripet Police Station, Chennai) on the file of the Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences against the accused under Sections 341, 509, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
Complainant The Inspector of Police, F-1, Chindadripet Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No. 260/2018)
Name of the Accused Moses Sharak, M/A.45/2018, S/o.Gnanaprakasam
Offence charged Under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result, the accused is found guilty and
convicted for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Sentence Hence, considering all the relevant fact and circumstance, the accused is accordingly convicted and sentenced as below;
(i) the accused is convicted under Section
294(b) IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS and to pay a fine of ₹1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 Days;
(ii) the accused is convicted under Section302 IPC and sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of 10000/-, in default₹ to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX MONTHS;
(iii) the accused is convicted under Section506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS and to pay a fine of ₹5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for THREE MONTHS;
(iv) total fine 16,000/-;₹
(v) all the sentences shall run concurrently;and
(vi) the period already undergone by theaccused from 10.09.2018 to 28.01.2019 and from 24.02.2023 to 27.02.2023, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The case properties in P.M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be
J.F.No. 61 – Page
any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.

Compensation Order U/s. 357 or 357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of 16,000/- paid by the₹ accused, ₹5,000/- each is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively. The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under Section
357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively, after due enquiry U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual
Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
J.F.No. 61 – Page

Description of the accused
Sl.
No. Name Father’s Name Caste or race Occupatio n Residence Age
1. Moses Sharak Gnanaprakasam Christian Contract
Work No.3/5, Rex Street, Chindadripet, Chennai – 02. 45

Dat e of Occurrence 09.09.2018
Complaint-Final Report 27.02.2019
Apprehension or appearance 10.09.2018
Released on bail 28.01.2019
(As per the Order of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.
No.293/2019 dated 28.01.2019)
Commitment 22.04.2019
Commencement of Trial 26.09.2019
Close of trial 15.02.2023
Sentence or Order Judgment : 24.02.2023
Sentence : 27.02.2023
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 27.02.2023
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.S.Vijayaraghavan and R.Varadharajan
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.
CASE SUMMARY
Sessions Case No.179/2019
(i) The period of remand of the accused : 10.09.2018 to 28.01.2019 and on
24.03.2023 to 27.02.2023
(ii) The date of filing of the complaint/final report in the Court : 27.02.2019
(iii) The date of committal of the case to the Court of Session 22.04.2019
(iv)
The date of questioning of the accused under Sections 228, 240, 246 and 251 of the Code, as the case maybe; 26.09.2019
(v) Filing of all miscellaneous petitions and their results including the results on challenge before superior Courts, except routine petitions like petitions under section 317 of the Code, etc Crl.M.P.No. U/s Result Appeal
26223/22
25786/22
25787/22
10382/22
20802/22 311 315
311
311
311 Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Partly allowed Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(vi) Date of examination inchief and crossexamination of a witness; Witnesses Chief Cross
P.W.1 and P.W.2
P.W.3
P.W.4
P.W.5 and P.W.6
P.W.7
P.W.8
P.W.9 and P.W.10
P.W.11
P.W.12 07.04.2022
26.05.2022
26.05.2022
13.06.2022
12.07.2022
22.07.2022
03.08.2022
02.09.2022
03.10.2022 07.04.2022
07.11.2022
Nil
13.06.2022
12.07.2022
22.07.2022
03.08.2022
02.09.2022
03.10.2022
….2.
P.W.13 17.10.2022 17.10.2022
(vii) Date of examination of the accused under section 313 CrPC; 19.10.2022
(viii) Details of abscondence of an accused and his appearance/production, as the case may be; Date of absconding
Nil
Date of appearing
Nil
(ix) Grant of stay by superior Courts and the results thereof: Nil
(x) Details of victim compensation ordered: In fine, out of the fine of 16,000/-₹ paid by the accused, 5,000/- each is₹ ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively. The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the
District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2,
….3.
Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3,
Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively, after due enquiry U/s
357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
….4.

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 Friday, the 24th day of February, 2023
2053 – ததரவளளளவவள ஆணளட, சபகதரத மவசத ததஙளகளள12 ஆமள நவளள வவளளளதககளதழமம
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No:179/2019 (CNR NO. TNCH0 – 015828 -2019)
The Inspector of Police, F-1, Chindadripet Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No. 260/2018)
Moses Sharak, M/A.45/2018,
S/o.Gnanaprakasam,
No.3/5, Rex Street, – Vs. … Complainant
Chindadripet, Chennai – 02. … Accused

This Sessions case is taken on file on 07.06.2019 came up on
15.02.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B. Aarathi, B.A.,
B.L., Learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and
M/s.S.Vijayaraghavan and R.Varadharajan, Learned Advocates for the Accused
….2.
and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and perusing the material records, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Inspector of Police, F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.260/2018, before the committal Court of the
Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 09.09.2018 at about 08:00 P.M. at Rex Street, Chintadripet, Chennai, near the house at Door No.3/5, the accused with the intention to murder the deceased Tmt.Karpagam attacked her with a hammer due to previous enmity for separating his wife from him and abusing her with filthy language and caused head injuries and further threatened the other witnesses with the same consequence if they interfere, and then the injured Tmt.Karpagam having been taken to the hospital, succumbed to head injuries on the next day on 10.09.2018. Thereby, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 509, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
2. Cognizance and Committal: The Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, took cognizance of the offences and on appearance of the accused furnished free copies of all the documents, relied on
….3.
the side of the prosecution, to the accused 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, vide Order dated
22.04.2019 in P.R.C. No.58/2019, committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and bound over the accused to appear before the Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and made over to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
3. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges: Upon
appearance of the accused and his counsel before this Court, 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 offences which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty and chose to be tried. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
….4.
Prosecution side evidence:
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 19 witnesses cited, 13 witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.15 and Material Objects P.M.O.1 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
5. The facts that can be culled out from the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution are as follows:-
5.1. P.W.1 to P.W.6 are the eye witnesses. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal is the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam. P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri are the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively. P.W.4, Tmt. Thanu @ Arivu Selvi, P.W.5, Tmt.Kamala and P.W.6, Tmt.Sheela are the neighbours. They all have identified the deceased Tmt.Karpagam as the wife of P.W.1,
Tr.Kaliyaperumal and mother of P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri.
5.2. Since 19 years P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal along with his wife, the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and their children was residing in a rental house at No.3/5, Rex Street, Chintadripet, Chennai, as a tenant
….5.
under the accused Tr.Moses Sharak. There used to be frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife. The deceased Tmt.Karpagam used to pacify them during such quarrel. Ultimately due to such family feud the wife of the accused deserted him and left him. The accused thought that the deceased Tmt.Karpagam used to talk in favour of his wife and that she was the reason for his wife to desert him. Due to which he used to scold and comment whenever he sees the deceased. Therefore, about two months prior to the occurrence P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal along with his wife and children vacated the premises and shifted their residence to a adjacent street at Bazaar Street, Chindadripet, Chennai.
5.3. As they were having friends in Rex Street they used to visit them on Sundays. Likewise, on 09.09.2018 between 07.00 to 08:00 P.M.,
P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal along with his wife, the deceased Tmt.Karpagam and their children P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri went to Rex Street. The deceased was chatting with her friends near the lane that goes towards the house of the
accused. P.W.1/Tr.Kaliaperumal, her husband and
P.W.2/Seval.Gowtham and P.W.3/Tmt.Gayathri, her children were nearby taking to their friends and they were at a short distance. The deceased Tmt.Karpagam was talking with P.W.5/Tmt.Kamala and
….6.
her daughter P.W.6/Tmt.Sheela. Both were residing at Rex Street in one of the row house adjacent to the place where the accused is residing. While the deceased was chatting with them, the accused emerged from his house with a hammer and hit the deceased on her back side head, the deceased sustained injuries and fell down. When P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumal, her husband and P.W.2 and P.W.3, her children went near the accused, he threatened them that if they come near him they will also face the same fate and then the accused ran away. While assaulting the deceased the accused abused the deceased with uttering filthy words causing insult and annoyance.
5.4. Immediately P.W.1/Tr.Kaliayperumal, along with his children took the injured Tmt.Karpagam and admitted her at Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital. At the time P.W.11, Dr.Dineshkumar was on duty as Casualty Medical officer at Government Rajiv Gandhi General hospital. On 09.09.2018 at about 08.45 P.M. he examined the injured Tmt.Karpagam brought by her daughter Tmt.Gayathri (P.W.3) with the history of assault by known person near her residence at Rex Street at 08.00 P.M. The deceased was semi conscious and there was history of loss of consciousness, headache, vomiting and blood pressure was high. There was no external
….7.
injuries. P.W.11, Dr.Dineshkumar gave first aid and referred the patient for further treatment as inpatient. Ex-P.7/P.W.11 is the Accident Register issued by him. Accordingly intimation was also sent to police from the hospital.
5.5. P.W.12, Mareeswaran was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Chintadripet Police Station. On 09.09.2018 at about 09:00 P.M. he received intimation from Government Rajiv Gandhi General hospital and went to the hospital and found the injured Tmt.Karpagam undergoing treatment at Ward No.201. She was unconscious. Therefore, he examined and recorded the complaint statement given by the husband of the injured, namely, P.W.1,
Tr.Kaliyaperumal, who was in the hospital. P.W.12, the SubInspector of Police recorded the complaint statement, returned to the police station at 22.15 hours and registered a case in
Cr.No.260/2018 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(2) IPC. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal identified the complaint given by him, which is marked as Ex-P.1/P.W.1. The First Information Report is marked as Ex-P.8/P.W.12. After submitting the complaint and F.I.R. to court, P.W.12, Tr.Mareeswaran, S.I. of Police placed the case file for investigation by the Inspector of Police.
….8.
5.6. P.W.13, Tr.Murugesan, was then working as Inspector of Police at F1, Chintadripet Police Station. He received the case file and took up the case for investigation. On the same day on 09.09.2018 at about 22.40 hours he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar in Ex-P.2/P.W.7 and rough sketch in Ex-
P.9/P.W.13 in the presence of witnesses P.W.7/Tr.Prabhu and Tr.Akash. P.W.7, Tr.Prabhu corroborated the evidence of P.W.13, the investigating officer regarding the preparation of observation mahazar and identified his signature.
5.7. Further in continuation of the investigation, P.W.13, the investigating officer examined P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumal,
P.W.3/Selvi.Kayathri, P.W.2/Selvan.Gowtham, Tmt.Thulasi,
Tmt.Sujatha, P.W.4/Tmt.Thani, P.W.5/Tmt.Kamala,
P.W.6/Tmt.Sheela and recorded their statements. P.W.4, Tmt.Thanu did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.5/Tmt.Kamala and P.W.6/Tmt.Sheela supported the
prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3.
5.8. Then on the next day on 10.09.2018 at 12:30 P.M., P.W.13, the investigating officer tried to arrest the accused at A.N.Salai and West Koovam Road Junction at Chintadripet. But the accused tried to escape and fell down in the rubbish and sustain injuries and a
….9.
fracture on his right hand. At 12:45 P.M. the accused was arrested and brought to the police station and then sent to Government Rajiv Gandhi General hospital for medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, at 15.30 hours on interrogating the accused he gave voluntary confession statement. It was recorded in the presence of Tr.Saravanan and P.W.8/Tr.Veera. The accused gave a disclosure statement that he would identify and produce a weapon, a hammer for the place it is hidden by him. Ex-P.10/P.W.13 is the admissible portion of the confession. Accordingly the accused took them to Chintadripet Rex Street and produced a hammer (P.M.O.1) from the gutter near a church. The same was seized under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.11/P.W.13. P.W.8, Tr.Veera did not support the prosecution case in his chief-examining. However, he identified his signature in the confession and seizure mahazar, which are marked as Ex-P.3 and Ex-P.4 respectively. When cross examined by the prosecution after treating him hostile, he would admit that he witnessed the confession and seizure of the hammer (P.M.O.1) and signed as a witness and also identified the hammer (P.M.O.1). Thereafter, the accused was send for remand.
5.9. Thereafter, on 11.09.2018 at 00.15 hours P.W.13, the investigating officer received intimation that the deceased Tmt.Karpagam who
….10.
was undergoing treatment at the hospital died on 10.09.2018 at
21.45 hours. Based on the intimation he altered the offence to Section 302 IPC and submitted the alteration report in ExP.12/P.W.13.
5.10. Thereafter, he went to Government Rajiv Gandhi Hospital and received the death intimation in Ex-P.13/P.W.13. Further on the same day between 09:45 to 10:45 A.M. he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam in the presence of panchayat witnesses and prepared inquest report in Ex-P.14/P.W.13 and sent a requisition for post-mortem through head constable, P.W.10, Tr.Hemander.
5.11. P.W.10, Tr.Hemander handed over the requisition for post-mortem to the medical officer, Department of Forensic Medicine at Government Rajiv Gandhi Hospital and identified the body of the deceased.
5.12. P.W.9, Dr.Narendar received the requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam on 11.09.2018 at 11:40 A.M. and issued the post-mortem certificate in Ex-P.5/P.W.9. (At the time of marking the documents it was noted that the original postmortem certificate is not signed by the medical officer. Therefore the copy of the post-mortem certificate bearing his signature is
….11.
marked as Ex-P.6/P.W.9). Further, he has opined that the deceased has died due to effects of head injuries. Ex-P.5=Ex-P.6 the postmortem Certificate, reads as below:
” The body was first seen by the undersigned at 11.40 A.M. on 11.09.2018. Its condition then was Rigor mortis present all over the body. Post-mortem commenced at 11.40 A.M. on 11.09.2018. Appearances found at the Post-mortem of a moderately nourished female dead body.
Clothes:
1. Yellow coloured nightie with brown and black coloureddotted designs.
2. White coloured dhoti with brown colured border.
Ante-mortem Injuries:
1. Dark red contusion 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the back of middlethird of left arm.
2. Sutured surgical incised wound 20 cm on the left frontotemporo parietal regions on the scalp; on removal of sutures, wound was 20 x 0.5 cm x scalp deed and the margins were regular and gaping; On reflection of scalp,Dark red bruising 17 x 16 cm x scalp deep on the left fronto temporo parietal regions on the scalp; Bony deficiency 4 x 4 cm on the left temporal bone with radiating fissure fracture 5 cm on the left temporo occipital bone; Diffuse dark red bruising of left temporalis muscle; On removal of calvarium, Duramater: Intact; Thick film of Dark red subdural and subarachnoid
….12.
hemorrhage on the surface of right and left cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres of the brain; Brain: soft and Edematous; Laceration 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the left temporal lobe; Laceration 1 x 1 x 1 cm on the right temporal lobe: Laceration 1 x1 x 1 cm on the inferior surface of right frontal lobe; Cutsection: Normal: Fracture 6 cm on the floor of left side of middle cranial fossa.
Heart: Normal in size; Cut-section: All chambers contained fluid and clotted blood, Valves: Normal; Coronaries: Patent; Great vessels : Normal. Lungs : Normal in size; cut section: Congested. Larynx & Trachea : Empty and Intact; Hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages; Infact, Stomach : Contained 30 ml of greyish white colored fluid with no definite smell; Mucosa: Congested, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys; Normal in size; cut section: Congested, Bladder;Empty. Uterus; Normal in size; cut section: Empty, Ribs, Pelvis & Spinal column: Intact.
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.
Opinion as the cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died due to effects of head injuries.”
5.13. After completion of post-mortem P.W.10, Tr.Hemander, police head constable handed over the body of the deceased to her husband Tr.Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1). Further he handed over the viscera to
….13.
Forensic Science Laboratory and then reported to the investigating officer. Viceres report is not received.
5.14. Thereafter, in continuation of the investigation, P.W.13, the investigating officer examined P.W.9, Dr.Narendar, who conducted post-mortem, P.W.10, Tr. Hemandar, Head constable, P.W.12,
Tr.Mareeswaran, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report and recorded their statements. Further, he examined the witnesses P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham, P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri and recorded their further statements.
5.15. The seized case property hammer (P.M.O.1) was sent to Court under
Form-95 in Ex-P.15/P.W.13. Further the Junior Electricity Engineer, Greater, Chennai Corporation, Tr.Ramakrishnan was examined on 01.11.2018 regarding the availability of electricity at the place of occurrence and his statement was recorded. With this P.W.13, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report against the accused under Sections 341, 509, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.
5.16. In the final report instead of mentioning 294(b) it is wrongly mentioned as 509 IPC.
….14.
Examination of Accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
6. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence against the accused were put to him and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During such examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances as false and set up the defence as below:
“எனள அமளமவ , எனள தவயளமவமவ வடவ சமளபநதளமவக 2014 ககஸள கபவடளடவவளகளள . எனள உறவதனவளகளள மறளறமள வவடமககளக உளளள வவளகளள வசவதமள த அபகவதகளக வபவயள ககஸள கபவடளடளளளவவளகளள. அஙளக மவட கடளட வகவணளட இரககள தறவவளகளள. வவடமகதவரவளகளள கவலத வசயளயவதலமளல. நவனள கபவனவலள எதவவத வசவலளலத படதளத வகவடபளபதவக
மதரடளடகதறவவளகளள.”
7. Having set up the above defence the accused close his evidence by reporting that he does not have defence witnesses on his side and the case was posted for arguments. At this stage the accused filed a petition to reopen the defence side evidence and examined himself as defence witness. A petition under Section 315 CrPC was filed and leave was granted for examining the accused as a witness. Accordingly the accused examined himself as D.W.1. No documents or material objects marked on the side of the accused.
8. D.W.1, the accused would depose that he is presently residingat No,30, Mariamman Koil Street, Mangadu. In the year 2018 he was residing at
….15.
No.3, Rex Street, Chindadripet, Chennai, which is the house near the place of occurrence. That house belongs to 3 persons, his mother, Tmt.Alponsa, his uncle, Tr.Domnic Savier and another uncle Tr.Addiak Edward. His mother got 5 children. He is the first child, second is Tmt.Melvin, third, Tmt.Johnsi, fourth Tmt.Janivi and fifth Tr.Prince. Since the property was taken by his relations, he is not residing in that property.
9. In the year 1994 he loved and married his wife. Later she divorced him and got marry to another person 22 years ago. He has seen the deceased, Tmt.Karpagam who used to come to his house sometimes. She was residing as a tenant in his second uncle’s house.
10. There is civil suit regarding the property. In the year 2018 he was working at hotel Ramada, Egmore, as a cleaner. There are four families residing in that building. In the front portion one Tmt.Lola was residing, in the next portion Tr.Balu, and the next Tr.Muthuraman and in the next Tmt.Manjula were residing. In the opposite house P.W.5, Tmt.Kamala and P.W.6, Tmt.Sheela were residing.
11. P.W.5/Tmt.Kamal and P.W.6/Tmt.Sheela used to act as a owner of the building. Since 1995 they were residing in that building. After his wife deserted him, P.W.5 and P.W.6 used to speak bad of him. The deceased came as a tentant from 2000 or 2002 onwards.
….16.
12. On 05.09.2018 he received the salary from his employer Hotel Ramada and went to Velankanni. He got drunk at Karaikal and tried to board a bus and fell down and sustain injuries on her forehead, left hand and fracture in the right hand. He took native treatment at Velankanni. Then on 08.09.2016 he left Velankanni and reached Chennai Egmore Railway station on 09.09.2018 at 5:30 A.M. Then he went to the hotel (employor) and applied leave for a week and came home, it was a Sunday.
13. On that day afternoon he took sleeping pills and went to sleep. At 08:00 P.M. some one knocked the door. When he opened it, two policemen were there. They told him that the Inspector is calling him. He informed them that a case is pending in the Court and since he has sustained injuries he will come on the next day. But they insisted him to come immediately and that he will sent back in 5 minutes. When he question why he has to come, they told that some enquiry regarding property case. Accordingly, he was taken to the police station and made to sit in the bench till the arrival of the Inspector. From 08:30 P.M. to 12.30 A.M. he was there. Then, the Inspector of Police came, but, he did not inform him what is the problem. On the next day, it was a Monday, he was at the police station through out. In the evening he was taken to a house of the Judge and was remanded. He was not informed what was the case filed against him.
….17.
14. He is having some problem in his ears. During winter season his ears would get shut and later he will be alright. No signature was taken from him by the police. They did not informed him the case. But, in the card given to him it was 307. He came out on bail for the case of 307. He does not know how the deceased died. For the first time he saw the hammer (P.M.O.1) in the court.
15. Thus, after examination himself as D.W.1, the accused closed his defence.
Point for determination:
16. Now the point that arise for determination in this case is; Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, under sections 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
17. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and the accused. Written arguments submitted on both sides.
Identity of the deceased and accused:
18. On considering the above rival contentions and perusing the oral and documentary evidence, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam and the accused. The accused himself would admit in
….18.
his evidence that the deceased was residing since 2000 or 2002 at the premises situated at No.3, Rex Street, Chindadripet, Chennai. Further he would admit that the deceased Tmt.Karpagam as the wife of P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal.
19. The prosecution on its part has examined 6 eye witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 6. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal is the husband, P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham is the son and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri is the daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam.
They identified the deceased before this court as Tmt.Karpagam. Further P.Ws.
5 and 6 also identified the deceased before this court. The fact that P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal along with his wife the deceased Tmt.Karpagam and her children were residing for nearly 19 years at No.3/5, Rex Street, Chindadripet, Chennai, in one of the portion of the property that belongs to accused and his family member is not denied. Further P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.Ws. 5 and 6 have also identified the accused as one of the house owner. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly proved the identity of the accused as well as the deceased.
Cause of death:
20. The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses would prove that on the date of occurrence on 09.09.2018 the deceased Tmt.Karpagam sustained head injuries and she was taken and admitted for treatment at Government Rajiv Gandhi Hospital. P.W.11, Dr.Dineshkumar would deposed that he examined the
….19.
injured Tmt.Karpagam who was brought by her daughter P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri with the history of assault by one known person near his residence and the injured was found semi conscious. He admitted her as inpatient for treatment.
Admittedly, there is no external injuries found on the deceased at that time. This fact is corroborated and proved by P.W.7/P.W.11, the Accident Register.
21. The oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would prove that the deceased who was undergoing treatment at the Hospital died on 10.09.2018. ExP.13/P.W.13 is the Death Intimation given by the hospital authorities reporting that the deceased died on 10.09.2018 at 09.45 P.M. P.W.13, the investigating officer has deposed that having received the death intimation, he altered the offence, then conducted inquest and gave requisition for post-mortem. Accordingly, P.W.9, Dr.Narendar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and gave the post-mortem report in Ex-P.5=Ex-P.6.
22. The oral evidence of P.W.9, Dr.Narendar and the post-mortem report would prove that the deceased has died due to head injuries. Therefore, from the medical evidence produced on the side of the prosecution, the prosecution is able to prove the cause of death that the deceased died due to head injuries.
….20.
Culpability of accused:
23. Now the pertinent question will be whether the death is
homicidal in nature or not? It yes, whether the injury was caused by the accused or not?
24. It is settled law that in criminal cases in India the burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has got the right to remain silent.
25. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the
testimony of eye witnesses and contended that;
25.1. The eye witnesses clearly deposed that the accused attacked the deceased with the hammer due to which she fell down and was taken to the hospital. Further, it is submitted that the medical evidence would show that the injuries sustained by the deceased is possible with the weapon hammer (P.M.O.1). It is further submitted that there is no material to discredit their evidence during cross-examination.
25.2. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the place of occurrence has been clearly identified by the witnesses and
….21.
they have spoken about the motive for the accused to attack the deceased. It is further pointed out that when the deceased along with her husband and children (P.Ws. 1 to 3) came to Rex Street to see their friends, there were not together but split up in the nearby vicinity while the deceased was talking to P.Ws. 5 and 6, and at that time the accused emerged from his house with a hammer premediated and attacked the deceased with intention to finish her. It is further submitted that since P.Ws. 1 to 3 were not together with P.W.5 and P.W.6 they have not stated about the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Only after seeing the accused attacking the deceased they rushed near the deceased, and the accused threatened them and ran away. Therefore it is pointed out that the omission on the part of Tmt.Kamala (P.W.5) and Tmt.Sheela (P.W.6) to speak about the presence of other witnesses will not discredit their evidence.
25.3. Further, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the weapon used to commit the offence is recovered based on the confession given by the accused and the eye witnesses would corroborate the fact that the accused produced the weapon from the gutter.
….22.
25.4. Therefore, it is submitted that from the cogent and consistent oral and medical evidence the prosecution is able proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
26. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused would refute the above contention and submitted as below:
26.1. It is submitted that the place of occurrence is not proved as there is contradiction regarding the place. It is submitted that the occurrence place is said to be near the house of the accused. But as per the investigating officer it is near a church, which does not finds place in the observance mahazar and rough sketch.
26.2. Further, it is submitted that the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is doubtful because both P.Ws. 5 and 6 have stated that the husband and children of the deceased were not present at the time of occurrence. Further, it is submitted that P.Ws. 5 and 6 have not stated about the presence of each other at the time of occurrence and there is contradiction regarding the manner of occurrence. Hence it is submitted that the statement of the eye witnesses cannot be relied upon.
….23.
26.3. Further, it is submitted that the delay in sending the statements and the documents to the court belatedly along with the final report would caused doubt as it paves way for improvements and embellishments.
26.4. Further, it is submitted that the recovery of P.M.O.1 (Hammer) is not supported by independent witnesses. Further, it is submitted that there is no mention in the confession and seizure mahazar that it was recovered from the gutter, instead, it is mentioned as place near the church, which is not proved. Therefore it is submitted that the recovery of hammer is also not proved by the prosecution. Further it is submitted that the hammer could not have cause the injuries to the decease as there is no corresponding external injuries.
26.5. Further, it is submitted that the motive attributed by the prosecution is very weak and it is not proved. It is submitted that the wife of the accused deserted him prior to the year 2000, as admitted by the investigating officer (P.W.13), which cannot from a motive after 19 years to commit the crime, and that they came as a tenant only after the wife of the accused left him.
Hence, it is submitted that the motive is not sustainable.
….24.
26.6. Further, it is submitted the accused has given evidence explaining the injuries sustained by him which need to be considered in favour of the accused and that the defence of the accused that he is falsely implicated due to property dispute would also caused doubt upon the prosecution case.
26.7. Therefore it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
The occurrence:
27. On examining the oral and documentary evidence, in the light of the above contentions, the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.Ws. 5 and 6 have deposed clearly and cogently about the presence of the accused and attributed specific overtact mentioning that the accused emerged from his house with a hammer and attacked the deceased on her head.
28. It is contended on the side of the accused that the other eye witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 6 would admit during cross-examination that the husband and children of the deceased were not present at the time of occurrence. But,on examining the evidence, the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be easily brushed away. P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumam, husband of the deceased, has clearly deposed that they shifted there resident from Rex Street to Bazaar Street a couple of
….25.
months before the occurrence and they used to visit Rex street on Sundays to meet there friends. It is a admitted fact that the P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumal was residing at Rex Street since 19 years. So, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, the husband and children of the deceased that they came to see their friends at Rex Street can be believed to be true. Further, the fact that the deceased was at Rex Street at the time of occurrence is also clearly proved from the independent eyewitnesses P.Ws. 5 and 6, where were the erestwhile neighbours. The place of occurrence in the Rex Street, near the lane that lead to the house of the accused and the witnesses. It is shown in the Rough sketch and corroborated by the eyewitnesses.
29. No doubt during cross-examination Tmt.Kamala (P.W.5) and Tmt.Sheela (P.W.6) would admit that the husband and children were not present at the place of occurrence. In the light of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 it can be inferred that they were not present with the deceased at the time of occurrence, but, they were present in the near by vicinity.
30. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would indicate that they were not present along with the deceased while she was chatting with her friends. Instead, they were little away in the vicinity from her. May be because of that Tmt.Kamala(P.W.5) and Tmt.Sheela (P.W.6) would have stated that the husband and children were not present, meaning not present with them.
….26.
31. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased has stated that on 09.09.2018 he along with his wife and children went to Rex Street at
07:45 P.M. He would specifically state that;
“கடநளத 09.09.2018 அனளற நவனள எனள மமனவத மறளறமள எனள மகனள வககதமனள இரவ சமவவள 7.45 மணதகளக வரகளஸள வதரவதறளக கபவகனவமள. எனள மமனவத அஙளகதரநளத அவரமடய நணளபவளகளடனள கபசதகளவகவணளடரநளதவவள . நவனமள எனள பதளமளளகளமள வகவஞளசமள தளளளதயதரநளகதவமள. அபளகபவத எததவத அவவள வவடளடலதரநதள சததளதயலடனள வநளத வவளதகய நதனறளதரநதள எனள மமனவதயதனள பதனளதமலயதலள அடதளதவவள . எனள மமனவத கவகழ வதழநளதவதடளடவவள . நவனள பவவளததள ஓட வநளகதனள. அபளகபவத உனகளகமள இகத கதததவனள எனளற வசவலலள தவதடளட எததவத ஓடனவவள . உனளனவலளதவனள தனள மமனவதயமள கடமளபமமள பதவதநளதத எனளற வசவலலளத எனள மமனவதமய அடதளதவவள .”
32. Thus, his evidence is that his wife was talking with her friends and he along with her children were in a little distance away in the vicinity and at the time the accused came out from his house with the hammer and attack his wife and she fell down and when he ran near to see his wife, the accused also threatened him.
33. The above evidence of P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal is corroborated in all material particulars by P.W.2, Selvan.Gowthan and P.W.3, Tr.Gayathri.
….27.
P.W.2/Selvan.Gowtham would also testify that he along with his father were standing aside and his mother was talking with her friends near the lane that goes to the house in which they previously resided. She would deposed that;
“நவனமள அபளபவவமள ஓரமவக நதனளறவகவணளடரநளகதவமள. அபளகபவத அமளமவ அவரமடய நணளபவளகளள வஜசத, மஞளசளவ மறளறமள ஒர ஆயவவடனள நதனளற
கபசதகளவகவணளடரநளதவவளகளள. மனளபதரநதள வவடளடனள அரகதலள வதரவதலள நதனளற கபசத வகவணளடரநளதவவளகளள. அபளகபவத எததவத சதளதத மமறதளத எடததளவநதள எனள அமளமவவதனள பதனதள மலயதலள அடததள வதடளடவவள. அமத பவவளதளத நவனள அகளகவ , அபளபவ கதடளகட கபவன கபவத கதடளகட வநளதவலள உஙளகளகளகமள இகத நதமலமம எனளற
வசவனளனவவள.”
34. Thus the evidence of P.W.2 would fully corroborate the version of P.W.1 they were not with the deceased, but, they were present in the vicinity.
35. Similarly P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri would deposed that;
09.09.2018 நவனள அமளமவ அபளபவ மறளறமள தமளபத உடனள நவஙளகளள ஏறளகனகவ கடயதரநதள வரகளஸள வதரவதலள உளளள நணளபவளகமள பவவளகளக மவமல சமவவள 5.30 மணதகளக கபவகனவமள. அபளகபவத எனள அமளமவ அவரமடய நணளபவளகளடனள கபசதகளவகவணளட இரநளதவவள . நவனள எனள நணளபவளகளடனள கபசதகளவகவணளடரநகள தனள . எனள தமளபத அவனமடய நணளபவளகளடனள கபசதகளவகவணளட இரநளதவவள . நவனள அபளபவ மறளறமள தமளபத மனளனவட கபவகனவமள . அமளமவ பதனனள வட வநளதவவள . அபளகபவத அமளமவ
….28.
சதளதமள ககடளட ததரமபள த பவவளதளகதனள . அபளகபவத எததவத அமளமவமவ பதனளதமலயதலள சததளதயவலள அடதளதவவள. நவஙளகளள கதடளகட வநளதவலள எஙளகமளயமள அடபளகபனள எனளற வசவனளனவவள. எனள அமளமவ மயஙளகத ககவ ழ வதழநளதவதடளடவவள . சய நதமனவ இலமள ல”.
36. The evidence of P.W.3/Tmt.Gayatri, would again clearly indicate that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were not with the deceased Tmt.Karpagam. In fact when the deceased was talking with her friends at the place of occurrence, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were in the vicinity and talking to their friends around that place.
37. P.Ws. 1 to 3 being the husband and children of the deceased there is no necessity for them to falsely implicate the accused letting the real culprit to escape. There intention would be to punish the real culprit who caused the death of Tmt.Karpagam (deceased). Only, because they were not together with the deceased at the time of occurrence, P.Ws. 5 and 6 should have stated that the husband and children of the deceased were not present at the time of occurrence, so it cannot be construed that they were not at all present at that time. In fact P.W.5(Tr.Kamala) would state that they had gone to the Church, which would mean that the deceased was accompanied by P.Ws. 1 to 3, her husband and children. Further she would state that the relatives took the deceased to the hospital, which is non other than P.W.3/Tmt.Gayathri. Therefore, based on the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 alone it cannot be concluded that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were not present at the time of occurrence, where
….29.
their presence at the time of occcurrence is highly probable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
38. Further, soon after the occurrence the injured Tmt.Karpagam is taken to Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital. The medical officer P.W.11, Dr.Dineshkumar has recorded the accident register (Ex-P.7/P.W.11) that the injured was brought by her daughter Tmt.Gayathri. So the presence of Tmt.Gayathri (P.W.3) cannot be doubted. It is contended on the side of the accused that the address given to the doctor (P.W.11) by Tmt.Gayathri (P.W.3) as Rex Street while they were residing at Bazaar Street at the time of occurrence, would show there deliberation intention of fix the accused. The injured is taken to the hospital in a critical condition. The place of occurrence is at Rex Street near the house at Door No, 3/5 Rex Street. So, it is quit natural that in a tensed mental condition Tmt.Gayathri (P.W.3) clould have given the place of occurrence and there is possibility of the same being noted as the residential address. So, by mentioning the place of occurrence as the place of residence in the accident register (Ex-P.7/P.W.11) does not discredit the veracity of the eye-witnesses.
39. Further, on receiving intimation from the hospital P.W.12, Tr.Mareeswaran, Sub-Inspector of Police has gone to the hospital at 21.00 hours which is 15 minutes from the time the deceased was brought to the hospital ie.
….30.
08:45 P.M. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal was present at the hospital and he had given a complaint statement (Ex-P.1). Based on which P.W.12/Tr.Mareeswaran returned to the police station at 22.15 hours and registered F.I.R. in ExP.8/P.W.12. On perusing the compliant (Ex-P.1/P.W.1) and F.I.R. (ExP.8/P.W.12) it fully corroborates the testimony of eye witnesses regarding the identity of the accused, motive and the manner in which the occurrence took place. It would further indicate that on Sundays the deceased along with her family members used to go to Rex Street to visit her friends where they were residing previously for 19 years. So, the complaint is lodged within one hour from the time of occurrence and within 15 minutes from the time the deceased was admitted in the hospital. There is no possibility for embellishment and improvement to falsely implicate the accused by naming him in the complaint, if the accused has not committed the same. During cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 nothing is elicited that they had any serious enmity to falsely implicate the accused, leaving out the real culprit to escape. Therefore, the presence of the accused and the occurrence in which accused attacked the deceased Tmt.Karpagam is clearly and cogently proved by the eye-witnesses.
40. It is contended that the witnesses P.W.5/Tmt.Kamala and P.W.6/Tmt. Sheela have not stated about the presence of one another. On carefully scrutinizing the evidence , P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumal has stated during
….31.
cross-examination that they went to seen their erstwhile neighbours and when a question was put to see which friend they went on that day, he would name their friend Tmt.Sheela (P.W.6). Further, P.W.2(Selvan Gowtham) would state that his mother was talking to her friends Jeesi, Manjula and one Grandma. The grandma mention by P.W.3 is non other than Kamala (P.W.5). Further, Sheela (P.W.6) has clearly deposed in her chief examination that she was sitting and talking with her mother (P.W.5) and next to her mother the deceased Karpagam was sitting and at that time the accused came and attacked the deceased. So, the presence of each other witnesses is mentioned by then. Therefore, the contention on the side of the accused that the eye-witnesses have not spoken about the presence of each other witnesses would cause doubt on their reliability cannot be sustained.
41. Therefore, from the above materials P.Ws. 1 to 3, though being the husband and children of the deceased, their evidence inspires the confidence of the court to prove the complicity of the accused. Further, P.Ws. 5 and 6, the eye witnesses have also corroborated the role of the accused in causing injuries to the deceased. Hence, the prosecution has clearly prove the occurrence by means of direct evidence by examining the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6.
….32.
Motive:
42. When the case is based on direct evidence the absence of motive is not of much relevance. The settled legal position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand
(2011) 3 SCC 654, in which it has been observed in para 15 as under:-
“15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of the accused is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it relies upon the testimony of eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eyewitness account of the occurrence. That is because if the court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eyewitnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eyewitnesses is found
….33.
unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eyewitnesses. See Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State Of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219, Hari Shanker v. State Of
U.P(1996) 9 SCC 40 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal(2008) 16 SCC 73.”
43. Thus, when there is credible and reliable eye-witnesses to prove the complicity of accused the absence of motive recedes to the back seat. The presence of motive will add weight to the testimonies of the prosecution case. P.W.1 has clearly deposed that they were residing at the house of the accused as a tenant for nearly 19 years and he used to be frequent quarrel with his wife, for which the deceased would go and pacify them. But, the wife of the accused deserted him. It is specifically stated by P.W.1, husband of the deceased that the accused was aggrieved against them saying that they are the reason for his wife to desert him. Even, during cross-examination P.W.1, husband of the deceased, has reiterated this version and the same is not denied or dislodged in any manner during cross-examination. The motive also find place in the Complaint (Ex-P.1) and F.I.R (Ex-P.8).
….34.
44. It is contended on the side of the accused that the motive projected on the side of the prosecution is vague and cannot be believed. It is further submitted that even before the deceased came as a tenant the wife of the accused has left him and therefore it is not possible for the accused to have motive against the deceased. The only material relied by the accused is the statement given by the investigating officer (P.W.13) during cross-examination. Nothing is elicited and prove in support of this contention during the crossexamination of the occurrence witnesses.
45. On scrutinizing the materials on record it is mentioned in the complaint (Ex-P.1) and F.I.R. (Ex-P.8) itself that since 19 years they were residing in the house of the accused as a tenant, which means from 1999 or
2000 prior to the occurrence in the year 2018. In cross-examination the Investigating Officer (P.W.13), he would admit that during his investigation he came to know that the wife of the accused Tmt.Karpagam left in the year 1996 or 1997 and she married one Sakthivel in the year 2000. But, no material is place of record to show how he came to know about this fact. It is not put to the material witnesses P.W. 1 any thing suggesting that even prior to they coming as a tenant, the wife of the accused has left him. When it is suggested to P.W.3(Tmt.Gayathri) that the wife of the accused left in the year 1999, she has denied it and would assert they the came as tenant prior to 2000.The accused
….35.
(DW.1) would admit during cross-examination that his wife got separated in the year 1999. So, the evidence of P.W.13 (Investigation officer) that he came to know that the wife of the accused left him in the year 1996 or 1997 cannot be correct. So, even as per the admitted case of the accused his wife left him in the year 1999. By that time the deceased along with her family have come as tenants in the house of the accused. Only in the year 2000 the wife of the accused got married to someone else. Therefore, the possibility of the motive attributed cannot be totally ruled out when the eye witnesses who have knowledge about the motive have clearly deposed about the same in their evidence before this court.
46. The deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3, her husband and children have vacated the house of the accused and shifted to the adjacent street just 2 or 3 months prior to the occurrence. P.W.1 (Kaliyaperumal), husband has deposed that because the accused was causing trouble be quarrelling and abusing the deceased wherever she pass by him, they vacated the premises. It shows that the accused was aggrieved and having vengeance. So, the motive attributed by the prosecution is proved which will strengthen the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and add credit to their evidence.
….36.
Weapon:
47. The weapon used for committing the offence, namely, a hammer (P.M.O.1) is seized during the investigation. No doubt there is little inconsistency regrading the place where it was seized. P.W.13, the Investigating Officer would deposed that based on the confession given by the accused, he took him to the Rex Street and identified and produced the hammer from a gutter near a church. The fact that the accused identified and produced from the gutter is also spoken by P.Ws. 5 and 6, who seems to be natural witnesses who have seen the accused producing by hammer. No doubt in the confession admission portion (Ex-P.10/P.W.3) and in the seizure mahazar (Ex-P.11/P.W.13) the place where the hammer is hidden is not mentioned. But, after taking the investigating officer to the place of occurrence in Rex Street the accused has produced the hammer (P.M.O.1) from the gutter near the church. The independent witnesses Tmt.Kamala(P.W.5) and Tmt.Sheela (P.W.6) have also seen the same and they volunteered to state the fact of recovery when they identified the hammer (P.M.O.1).
48. P.W.8, Tr.Veera though turned hostile in the chief examination, during his cross-examination on the side of the prosecution he would admit to have witnessed the confession and recovery of P.M.O.1 (Hammer). The weapon hammer (P.M.O.1) is identified by all the occurrence witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 and
….37.
P.Ws. 5 and 6 as well as the witness for the recovery P.W.8/Tr.Veera. Therefore, the omission to mention the gutter in the confession and seizure mahazar does not cause any doubt. Therefore, hammer (P.M.O.1) recovered is proved to be the weapon used by the accused to inflict the injury to the deceased Tmt.Karpagam.
49. It is contended on the side of the accused that the is no external injuries and if an attack is made with a heavily metal like hammer (P.M.O.1) there should be a corresponding external injuries. This contention can be easily brushed aside in the light of the eye-witnesses proving the attack and the weapon. Further, P.W.9/Dr.Narendar who did the postmortem would opine that said injury is possible with the hammer (P.M.O.1). There is no crossexamination challenging the opinion given by P.W.9. Moreover, even though a hammer is heavy object, the nature of injury caused would depends the direction, force and the portion of the object that comes into contact. A hammer being a blunt object an attack with force may cause internal injuries without causing corresponding external injuries. Therefore, mere absence of external injuries on the head does not create doubt in the prosecution case when there is medical evidence to prove that the deceased had sustained fracture of the skull and the corresponding internal injuries. Brain is very sensitive and vital part. A force or shock given by a blunt force can cause a severe shock and trauma to the brain that may prove fatal. Therefore, the contention on the side of the accused
….38.
that the head injuries could not be caused by P.M.O.1(hammer) cannot be sustained. It is the specific evidence of the eye-witnesses that after the attack made by the accused the deceased fell down. So the injuries on the other part of the body is possible due to fall. It is only the effect of the act committed to the accused.
Delay of sending records to Court:
50. One other contention raised on the side of the accused is the delay in sending the documents to court. On perusing the records as already mentioned supra the occurrence has taken place at about 08:00 P.M. The victim is taken to the hospital at 08:45 P.M. The complaint statement in Ex-P.1 is recorded at 09:00 P.M. and the F.I.R. is registered at 10:15 P.M. The entire occurrence is clearly narrated and the name of the accused finds place in the F.I.R. As such there is no material delay in registering the F.I.R..
51. The F.I.R. has reached the court on 10.09.2018 at about 21.15 hours. The First Information Report in Ex-P.8/P.W.12 is not hand written. It is generated through the software provided for generating the F.I.R. Further, the accused is arrested on 10.09.2018 at about 12.30 P.M. based on the F.I.R. His confession is recorded at 15.30 hours and the recovery is made at 17.00 hours and thereafter the accused is sent for remand along with F.I.R. and complaint.
….39.
The statement of P.W.1/Kaliyaperumal, husband of the deceased which is recorded under Section 161(3) CrPC also reached the Court on 10.09.2018. Therefore the material document has reached the Court at the time of remanding the accused.
52. The statement of the other eye witnesses have reached the Court along with the final report on 27.02.2019. There is no any kind of improvement or embellishment found in the statement of the other witnesses sent belatedly. What is found in the FIR is also finds place in the those statements. In the absence of any improvement or embellishment in the statement of the other witnesses, mere delay in sending the statements of the other witnesses and documents belatedly along with the final report does not cause any doubt upon the prosecution case. Only when the delay has paved way for any kind of concoction and fabrication, it may be fatal to the prosecution. In this case on hand there is no such materials elicited on the side of the accused to prove that there is improvements or embellishment in the subsequent statements. Therefore, the delay pointed out on the side of the accused does not affect the prosecution theory.
….40.
Defence of accused:
53. The defence taken by the accused is that he had gone to Velankanni and returned on 09.09.2018 and that while he was at Velankanni he went to Karaikal and after getting drunk in an inebriated state he tried to board a bus and fell down and sustained injuries. This version is testify only by the accused (D.W.1). There is no other material to corroborate the version given by the accused. He would deposed that he took the week leave from Ramada hotel where he was working and went to Velankanni. No one from that hotel is examined to prove that the accused was working there and took leave as stated by him. He has also not produced any medical documents to prove that he sustained injuries at Karaikal and took native treatment at Velankanni. In fact he has not set up such a defence during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Not even during his examination under Section 313(1)(3) CrPC he putforth such defence. Only after examining himself as D.W.1 and then recalling and cross examining the investigating officer he would set up such defence as mentioned above.
54. P.W.13, the evidence of investigating officer would prove that at the time of arrest the accused tried to escape and he sustained injuries by falling down. P.W.13, the investigating officer has stated they he gave treatment to the accused at Government Rajiv Gandhi General hospital and thereafter he was
….41.
remanded to judicial custody. The accused has not whispered anything about he sustaining injuries at Karaikal either to the doctor or to the Learned Magistrate when he was produced for remand. Therefore, the defence set up by the accused is highly farefetched and cannot be believed.
55. Moreover, the presence of the accused on the date of occurrence is admitted by him. The testimony of the eye witnesses is clear about the identity and complicity of the accused in committing the offence.
56. Further, the accused have taken defence that due to civil dispute he is falsely implicated in this case. There is no materials produced to show the nature or seriousness of the civil dispute. Moreover, it is said to be a property dispute among the siblings of the accused and their relations. The deceased is no way related to the accused. There is no material to show how the deceased or her family members, i.e., her husband and children (P.Ws. 1 to 3) are going to be benefited by falsely implicating the accused. Therefore, this defence of the accused does not deserve any consideration.
Conlcusion:
57. To conclude, from the above discussed evidence and facts and circumstances it is clearly proved that the accused emerged from his house with a a hammer (P.M.O.1) and attacked the deceased. This would clearly indicate
….42.
that the accused was premeditated to cause fatal injury to the deceased and kill her. When P.Ws. 1 to 3 tried to approach the deceased and the accused, he had threatened them that they will also face the same fate like the deceased. This clearly establish the intention to commit murder. Further, it is also proved from the testimonies of the eye-witnesses that the accused abused the deceased because uttering filthy words that would cause insult and annoyance. The occurrence has taken place in a street which is a public place in the view of the the public. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused as charged under Section 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point for
determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.
58. Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
59. For hearing the accused under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. on the question of sentence and passing sentence as per Section 354(3) Cr.P.C., the case stands adjourned to 27.02.2023. Since accused is found guilty, his bail stands cancelled and the accused is taken custody and remanded to judicial
….43.
custody till 27.02.2023 under Section 309 Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to be produced on 27.02.2023 for hearing on the question of sentence. Call on
27.02.2023.
//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 24th day of February, 2023//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
….44.
S.C. No.179/2019
DATED: 27.02.2023
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 27.01.2023 at 2.30 P.M.
60. Accused produced from judicial custody. The accused was found guilty and convicted under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. viz. judgment dated 24.02.2023. Today, accused is produce for hearing on question of sentence. Accused is examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
கமறநதள தணளடமன வழஙளககவணளடமள .
61. Recorded the plea of the accused. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Passover for orders. Call at 05.00 PM today 27.02.2023.
Pronounced by me in open Court on this 27th day of February, 2023.
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….45.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No.179/2019 DATED: 27.02.2023 05:00 PM
62. Heard both sides on the question of sentence and considered the plea of the accused. The learned Special Public Prosecution submitted that considering the heinous nature of the crime committed by the accused in killing an undefended woman he must be dealt with deterrent punishment. The learned Counsel for accused submitted that this case will not fall in the category of rarest of rare case and considering the age, social background, antecedents and the possibility of reformation, lenient view may be taken.
63. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused would remorse for his ghastly act and the probability of his reformation are the mitigating circumstances. Further, the offences does not fall within the category of rarest of rare case to invoke capital punishment. It has occurred due to the accused being aggrieved due to the separation of his wife. Hence, considering all the relevant fact and circumstance, the accused is accordingly convicted and sentenced as below;
….46.
(i) the accused is convicted under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced toundergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS and to pay a fine of ₹1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 Days;
(ii) the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of 10000/-, in default₹ to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX MONTHS;
(iii) the accused is convicted under Section 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to
undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS and to pay a fine of ₹5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for THREE
MONTHS;
(iv) total fine 16,000/-;₹
(v) all the sentences shall run concurrently; and
(vi) the period already undergone by the accused from 10.09.2018 to
28.01.2019 and from 24.02.2023 to 27.02.2023, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
64. Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.: The case properties in P.M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.
….47.
Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: –
65. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and examined the facts and circumstance. P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal is the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam. P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri are the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively. The evidence and the materials produced by the prosecution would prove that the deceased
Tmt.Karpagam is murdered by the accused and a crime/offence is committed. Due to the offence committed, P.W.1/Tr.Kaliyaperumal has lost his wife and P.W.2/Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3/Tmt.Gayathiri have lost their mother. They have lost the love and affection from the deceased. They have suffered mental loss and injury. More particularly, P.W.2/Selvan.Gowtham, who was a boy aged 13 years at the time of occurrence and lost not only his mother’s love and affect but he has to discontinue his studies due to family circumstances and due to the loss of his mother who was taking care of him. Hence, considering the loss and injuries suffered by them, it is the duty and responsibility of the state to restitute them. Hence, considering the loss and suffering this Court find this is a fit case to award compensation towards and loss and injury suffered by them and for rehabilitation.
66. Hence, out of the fine amount of 16,000/- paid by the accused,₹ ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each is ordered to be given as
….48.
compensation to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively, under Section 357(1)(c) of Cr.P.C.
67. Further, the compensation awarded under Section 357(1)(c)
Cr.P.C. is only a pittance and not adequate to rehabilitate P.Ws.1 to 3 for the loss suffered by them. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to make recommendation for adequate compensation under Section 357A(3) CrPC, to the District Legal Service Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award suitable compensation to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively.
68. In fine, out of the fine of ₹16,000/- paid by the accused,
₹5,000/- each is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively. The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
….49.
69. Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C.
to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1, Tr.Kaliyaperumal, the husband of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam, and to P.W.2, Selvan.Gowtham and P.W.3, Tmt.Gayathri, the son and daughter of the deceased Tmt.Karpagam respectively, after due enquiry
U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
70. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu
Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of February, 2023//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
….50.
Annexure:
List of Witnesses examined: On the side of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 :: Tr. Kaliyaperumal (Husband of the deceased)
P.W.2 :: Selvan. Gowtham (Son of the deceased)
P.W.3 :: Tmt. Gayathri (Daughter of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Tmt. Thanu @ Arivu Selvi
P.W.5 :: Tmt. Kamala
P.W.6 :: Tmt. Sheela
P.W.7 :: Tr. Prabhu
P.W.8 :: Tr. Veera
P.W.9 :: Dr. Narendar (Post-mortem doctor)
P.W.10 :: Tr. L.K. Heymindar (Police head constable)
P.W.11 :: Dr. Disneshkumar (A.R. doctor)
P.W.12 :: Tr. Mareeshwaran (Sub-Inspector of Police)
P.W.13 :: Tr. Murugesan (Investigating Officer)
On the side of the accused :
D.W.1 :: Tr. Moses Sharak (Accused)
List of Exhibits Marked:

On the side of the prosecution :
….51.
Exhibit No. Date Particulars
Ex-P.1/P.W.1 09.09.2018 Complaint statement given by P.W.1
Ex-P.2/P.W.7 09.09.2018 Observation mahazar
Ex-P.3/P.W.8 10.09.2018 P.W.8’s signature in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.4/P.W.8 10.09.2018 P.W.8’s signature in the seizure mahazar
Ex-P.5/P.W.9 11.09.2018 Original Postmortem Certificate (P.M.No.2068/18)
Ex-P.6/P.W.9 11.09.2018 Duplicate Postmortem Certificate (P.M.No.2068/18)
Ex-P.7/P.W.9 09.09.2018 Copy of the Accident Register (Sl. No.1914156)
Ex-P.8/P.W.12 09.09.2018 First Information Report (C 8737094)
Ex-P.9/P.W.13 09.09.2018 Rough sketch
Ex-P.10/P.W.13 10.09.2018 Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.11/P.W.13 10.09.2018 Seizure mahazar (Iron Hammer with wooden handle)
Ex-P.12/P.W.13 11.09.2018 Section Alteration Report
Ex-P.13/P.W.13 10.09.2018 Death Report to police
Ex-P.14/P.W.13 11.09.2018 Inquest Report
Ex-P.15/P.W.13 10.09.2018 Form95 (Iron Hammer with wooden handle)
On the side of accused: Nil
….52.
List of Material Objects Marked:
On the side of Prosecution:
Exhibit No. Particulars
P.M.O.1 Iron Hammer with wooden handle
On the side of the Accused: Nil