(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in S.C.No.51 of 2019 dated 20.04.2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and set aside the same.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.51 of 2019 dated 20.04.2022, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 and accused are classmates and friends. Through P.W.2, the deceased and P.W.3 to P.W.10 were also friends of the accused. While being so, on 22.07.2018 at about 08.00 p.m., all of them were consuming liquor in Queen Bar at Solai Alagupuram. P.W.10 came there. It was accused's turn to buy liquor, which was consumed along with his friends. At that juncture, when the accused took out his wallet, P.W.10 had commented that the said wallet was very nice. The accused replied that he had purchased it for Rs.500/- and also stated that he had given the said wallet to P.W.2 at free of cost. After hearing the same, P.W.2 had thrown the wallet at the face of the accused. The deceased had also questioned the accused regarding the same. Consequently, a quarrel arose between them and P.W.10 intervened and pacified the same. They had also planned to go to Courtallam for three days from 27.07.2018 to 29.07.2018. However, due to the said incident, the accused refused to join them at the last minute.

3. On the same day, at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.2 to P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 along with deceased, were chatting in front of one Balan watch shop at south veli street. P.W.2 and deceased contacted the accused and called him to come there, but the accused did not turn up. Once again, they called him and informed that if he did not come, they would come to his house.

4. At the same time, P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, came there on searching for the deceased. Simultaneously, the accused arrived at the spot in his two-wheeler carrying a sickle. There was a quarrel between the accused, P.W.2 and the deceased. The deceased pushed the accused and hence the accused fell down. Immediately thereafter, the accused took out two knives which were hidden in his hip area and stabbed the deceased on the left hand side of chest and stomach. When P.W.3 and P.W.4 intervened to rescue the deceased, the accused stabbed P.W.3 on the left hand side of his stomach and P.W.4 on the right side of his back. When others attempted to prevent the quarrel, the accused threatened them with dire consequences and fled away from the scene of crime.

5. The deceased was immediately taken to Vadamalaiyan Hospital, wherein he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.479 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (2 counts) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

6. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.27 and marked Ex.P1 to P19. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.9. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C and 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased, appellant and P.W.2 to P.W.10 were close friends and on the date of occurrence, ie., on 22.07.2018, they had consumed alcohol together at the bar. There was a wordy altercation between them, due to which, the appellant had left the place. Subsequently, on the same day at about 10.30 p.m., while P.W.2 to P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were chatting in front of Balan watch shop at south veli street, Madurai, the deceased had contacted the appellant through his mobile phone and incited him to be present in the scene of crime. Only upon such invitation, the appellant went there and there was a wordy quarrel between them, during which the appellant was pushed down by the deceased.

9. The prosecution, however, completely suppressed the said fact and charge sheeted as against the appellant alone. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the case, as the Doctor who initially treated P.W.3 and P.W.4 was not at all examined before the trial Court. There were two occurrences on 22.07.2018. The first occurrence took place at about 08.00 p.m., and subsequently the second occurrence took place at about 11.00 p.m. When the appellant refused to go to Courtallam along with P.W.2 to P.W.10, there was a wordy altercation and due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant had motive to do away with the life of the deceased. In fact, P.W.2 had threatened the appellant to come to the scene of crime, failing which they would come to his house. Therefore, the appellant was compelled to be present in the scene of crime and they had instigated the appellant to commit the offence. Hence, the appellant had absolutely no motive to eliminate the deceased. Further, there was no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses and there were material contradictions, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.2 to P.W.10, deceased and appellant were close friends and that while they were consuming alcohol, a dispute arose between them. Therefore, the appellant went to his house. Thereafter, though the other witnesses called the accused, the accused came to the scene of crime with two knives. Therefore, his intention was to do away with the life of the deceased. All the eyewitnesses deposed cogently and consistently, and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, it does not warrant any interference of this Court.

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

13. Admittedly, the appellant, deceased and P.W.2 to P.W.10 were close friends. On 22.07.2018 at about 08.00 p.m., they had consumed liquor in Queen Bar at Solai Alagupuram. There was a wordy quarrel between them and as such, the appellant went to his house. However, again he turned back to the scene of crime at about 11.00 p.m., because of the phone call that he received from P.W.2. The appellant came to the scene of occurrence with two knives, which were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2.

14. During quarrel, the deceased pushed the appellant down. Immediately thereafter, the appellant had taken two knives from his hip and stabbed the deceased. When P.W.3 and P.W.4 attempted to rescue the deceased, the appellant also stabbed them as well, as a result of which they sustained stab injuries. Thereafter, all the injured persons were taken to the hospital.

15. The brother of the deceased had deposed as P.W.1. He deposed that he had come to the scene of crime in search of his brother, in which he stated as follows:

                  

16. Thus, it is clear that there is clear evidence to prove the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C as against the appellant. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing was elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution. The other eyewitnesses, namely P.W.2 to P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9, also categorically deposed and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. One of the friends of the deceased/P.W.2, who is a practising advocate, also deposed as follows:

                  

                  

17. From the above, it is evident that the charges under Section 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C have been categorically proved by the prosecution as against the appellant.

18. The specific defence of the appellant was that he had no motive to do away with the life of the deceased and that he went to scene of crime only on the invitation of the deceased and P.W.2. According to him, he was pushed down by the deceased and, as such, he sustained injury. It was contended that this fact was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and that the appellant was not provided any treatment by the prosecution, which, according to the defence, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that though the appellant fell down due to the push by the deceased, he did not sustain any injury except a lacerated wound. Therefore, it does not require any treatment. That apart, when the appellant was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for remand, he did not even whisper anything about the injuries sustained by him. The said injury was not caused due to any specific overt act of the deceased or any other witnesses. During the altercation, he fell down and sustained only a lacerated wound.

20. Further, even while making his statement before the trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the appellant did not even whisper about the said injury. In order to substantiate the same, the appellant did not examine any witness. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was pushed down by the deceased and as such, he sustained only a lacerated wound.

21. Though the appellant came to the scene of crime on the call made by the deceased and P.W.2, he came to the scene of crime with two knives. During the altercation, he had taken two knives from the hidden place of his hip and stabbed the deceased indiscriminately. When P.W.3 and P.W.4 attempted to save the deceased, the appellant also stabbed them, as a result of which, they sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter, the deceased and injured witnesses were taken to the hospital.

22. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were issued wound certificates, which were marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. Both P.W.3 and P.W.4 sustained grievous injuries and the stab injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the charge under Section 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C.

23. The Doctor, who examined P.W.3 and P.W.4, had deposed as P.W.23 and his evidence corroborates with Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. The deceased was brought dead to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. The person who referred the body of the deceased for postmortem had deposed as P.W.22. The Doctor who conducted postmortem had deposed as P.W.24. P.W.24 opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to injury Nos.1 and 2.

24. Therefore, it is evident that the deceased died due to the stab injuries inflicted by the appellant herein. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubts.

25. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.