(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.203 of 2016 on 05.05.2023 and allow this criminal appeal.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 05.05.2023. convicting the accused person for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused person is said to have experienced abdomen pain and he informed the same to PW1, who is his aunt and the deceased, who is her daughter. The accused person was taken to the hospital and PW8/doctor, treated the accused person. On the way back from the hospital, when the two-wheeler came near SMS College, the accused person is said to have pushed down the deceased and shouted as to how dare the deceased had a relationship with a person belonging to Paraipatti. Thereafter, the accused person is said to have strangulated the deceased and assaulted her with a stone on her head and as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and the accused person is said to have fled from the place.

3. PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) at Alangulam Police Station and on receiving the statement of PW1, an FIR (Ex.P7) was registered by PW9 in Crime No.169 of 2013 for offence under Section 302 of IPC and the express FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court.

4. PW11 took up the investigation on the same day and at about 7.00 a.m., he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P5) in the presence of PW6 and also prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P9). Between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m., PW11 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayathars. Inquest report (Ex.P10) was also prepared.

5. On 19.05.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., PW11 arrested the accused person near the bus stop in the presence of PW5. Voluntary confession was given by the accused person and based on the admissible portion, MO4 was seized under Ex.P4 mahazar. At about 7.30 p.m., the twowheeler (MO5) was seized under Ex.P3 mahazar.

6. On the same day at about 10.30 p.m., the investigating officer seized MO3, MO6, MO7, MO8, MO9, MO10 and MO11 under Ex.P11.

7. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by PW10 and the postmortem report (Ex.P8) was prepared by noting the following injuries:

               “Appearances found at the postmortem: A body of a female lying on ili Bank. Eyes-closed. Mouth Partially open, Tongue within the mouth.

               External Injuries:

               1. Laceration in the occipital region of the scalp measuring 7 cm × 2 cm × bone depth.

               2. Multiple lacerations on the left side of the thorax and abdomen.

               3. Cut injury on the lower lip measuring 1 cm × 0.5 cm.

               On Opening Thorax:

               No rib fractures. Lungs pale. Heart empty. Hyoid bone intact.

               On Opening Abdomen:

               Stomach contains about 50 ml of semi-digested food particles;

               mucosa congested.

               Both kidneys, liver, pancreas, and spleen congested.

               Uterus empty.

               Intestines distended with gas.

               On Dissection of Scalp:

               4. Haematoma measuring 5 cm × 4 cm in the occipital area.

               On Opening Skull:

               5. Intracranial haemorrhage present in the occipital and bilateral parietal regions of the brain.

               Spine intact.

               Final Opinion:

               The deceased appears to have died due to injury to the vital organ – brain.”

8. The final opinion given by PW10 shows that the deceased would appear to have died of injury vital organ – brain.

9. The investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and after collecting all the materials, laid the final report before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. After serving copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the charge was framed against the accused person for offence under Section 302 of IPC. The accused person denied the charges.

10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exhibits P1 to P13 and also relied upon MO1 to MO11.

11. The incriminating circumstances and the evidence was put to the accused person while he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the same as false.

12. The accused person did not examine any witness nor relied upon any documents.

13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly proceeded further to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.

14. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

15. The star witness in this case is PW1, who is the mother of the deceased. Incidentally, she is also the aunt of the accused person since the accused is the son of PW1’s sister. PW1 has spoken about the manner in which the incident took place on 19.05.2013. She stated that while returning back from the hospital, the accused person suddenly stopped the vehicle and pushed down the deceased and shouted as to how she can develop a relationship with a person in Paraipatti when the accused is in love with the deceased. He thereafter strangulated the deceased with MO6 and attacked her with stone and blood started oozing out from the head. She found that the deceased died on the spot.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 had given the statement based on which the FIR was registered and in this statement, she has given minute details regarding the date and time when they went to the hospital and returned back and whereas in the evidence no such details were given. Apart from that, in the complaint PW1 had stated that the accused person dragged the deceased by pulling her legs up to the odai and whereas no such statement was made in the witness box. Therefore, it was contended that PW1 was exaggerating the incident. Even in the evidence, she has stated that they were coming back from the hospital at 5.00 p.m., and whereas in the complaint it was stated that the incident happened at 5.00 a.m.

17. In the considered view of this Court, the incident took place in the year 2013 and the complaint was given at about 6.00 a.m., and the FIR was registered immediately. However, PW1 was examined in the witness box only on 16.06.2022, which is after nearly ten years. Therefore, there is every possibility of PW1 losing her memory on the exact details about date and time. This fact has been properly taken into account by the trial court while appreciating the evidence of PW1 at paragraph 34 of the judgment.

18. While appreciating the evidence of witnesses, more particularly when the evidence is taken after sufficiently long time after the incident had taken place, the Court must necessarily give credit to some discrepancies and the element of loss of memory regarding the finer details in the case. At that juncture, the Court must only see if the evidence is in line with the earliest version that was given immediately after the incident and what took place thereafter.

19. The evidence of PW1 is not entirely different from what was stated in the statement that was recorded by PW9 when he registered the FIR.

20. The fact that at one portion of the deposition it has been mentioned as 5.00 p.m. by itself will not discredit the evidence of PW1 since obviously it is a typographical error. Apart from that, the evidence of PW1 has not been discredited in her cross-examination.

21. While appreciating the evidence of PW1, this Court has to necessarily take into consideration that the incident had taken place on 19.05.2013 at about 5.00 a.m. Before that, the presence of the deceased and the accused person has been clearly spoken to by PW8 doctor, who treated the accused person for the abdomen pain which was experienced by him. He states that such treatment happened between 3.30 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. on 19.05.2013. There is nothing to disbelieve this evidence of PW8.

22. Immediately after the incident, the statement was recorded from PW1 which was reduced into a complaint (Ex.P1) at about 6.00 a.m. by PW9 and the FIR came to be registered immediately thereafter. The FIR had reached the concerned Court on the same day.

23. The ocular evidence of PW1 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW10, who is the postmortem doctor. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased which led to her demise is also in line with the description of the incident given by PW1. In short, the ocular evidence is in line with the medical evidence.

24. This Court must also take into consideration the evidence of PW11, who is the investigation officer, who took up the investigation on the same day at 7.00 a.m. and prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch, inquest report and also seized the material objects under seizure mahazar. On the very same day, the accused person was also arrested and on the admissible portion of his confession MO4 was also seized in the presence of PW5.

25. Even though PW2 and PW3 were examined on the side of the prosecution, they turned hostile witnesses and merely stated that they only heard about the demise of the deceased.

26. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and it has been substantiated by the evidence of PW1, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW11. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and the same is hereby confirmed.

27. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.