Judicial Form No. 61

(Cr.R.P 106)

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

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

Sessions Judge,

 Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai

Dated Friday, the 21^st day of April, 2023

Complainant	The Inspector of Police,   K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 40. (Crime No.196/2018)
Name of the  Accused	Rajesh, M/A.22/2018, S/o. Nagalingam
Offence charged	Under Sections 307, 294(b) and 309 I.PC.
Plea of accused	Not guilty
Finding	In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and found  not guilty for the charges under Sections 294(b)

2053 – ததரவளளளவவள ஆணளட, சபகதரத சதததளதரர ததஙளகளள 8 ஆமள நவளள வவளளளதககளதழரம

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 193/2018

(CNR NO. TNCH01 – 006114 – 2018)

ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI

(P.R.C. No.46/2018 in (Crime No.196/2018, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai) on the file of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offence against the accused  under Sections 341, 294(b), 326, 307 and 309 IPC and made over to this

Court for enquiry and trial)

 

	and 309  I.P.C. The accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charges under Sections 294(b) and 309 I.P.C.
Sentence	Hence, this Court sentence the accused as below; (i)             to under go FIVE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; (ii)           the period already undergone by theaccused  from 21.04.2023 to 25.04.2023 shall be setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C.	The case properties in P.M.Os. 3 and 4 are ordered to be kept with the records. P.M.O.1, 2, 5 to 12 does not have any value at all. Hence, P.M.Os. 1, 2, 5 to 12 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or 357A Cr.P.C	In fine, out of the fine of Rs.20,000/- paid by the accused, Rs.15,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to the victim (P.W.1). 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 the Victim

 

			P.W.1/Selvi.Nivetha.  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.
Description of the accused
Sl. No.	Name	Father’s Name	Caste or race	Occupation	Residence	Age
1.	Rajesh	Nagalingam	Hindu	Maintenance Engineer	No.3/42, Bajanai Koil Street, Sembulivaram, Chennai – 67.	22/2018
Date of	Occurrence		20.02.2018
	Complaint-Final Report		16.04.2018
	Apprehension or appearance		22.03.2018 (Anticipatory Bail)
	Released on bail		22.03.2018 (As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No. 6950 of 2018 dated  08.03.2018)
	Commitment		14.05.2018
	Commencement of Trial		28.08.2018
	Close of trial		11.04.2023
	Sentence or Order		Judgment : 21.04.2023 Sentenced : 25.04.2023
	Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused		Since acquitted Copies to be furnished on application separately.
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.  G.Prabhakaran and R.Karthik

                

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.367/2021

(i)	The period of remand of the accused :				22.03.2018 (Anticipatory Bail)
(ii)	The date of filing of the complaint/final report in the Court :				16.04.2018
(iii)	The date of committal of the case to the Court of Session				14.05.2018
(iv)	The date of questioning of the accused under Sections 228, 240, 246 and 251 of the Code, as the case maybe;				28.08.2018
(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
					3856/2019 9099/2022	311 70(2)		Allowed Allowed	Nil Nil
(vi)	Date of examination inchief and crossexamination of a witness;	Witnesses		Chief			Cross
		P.W.1 P.W.2 P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.6 P.W.7 P.W.8 and P.W.9 P.W.10	30.10.2018 30.10.2018 02.01.2019 22.01.2019 14.02.2019 14.02.2019 14.02.2019 08.05.2019 09.11.2022		08.05.2019 and 11.03.2021 26.08.2021 16.12.2021 23.06.2022 14.02.2019 06.06.2022 16.09.2022 08.05.2019 09.11.2022,  24.11.2022, 08.02.2023
(vii)	Date of examination of the accused under section 313 CrPC;				15.02.2023

….2.

(viii)	Details of abscondence of an accused and his appearance/production, as the case may be;	Date of absconding Nil	Date of appearing
(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 Rs.20,000/paid by the accused, Rs.15,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to the victim (P.W.1). 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 the Victim P.W.1/Selvi.Nivetha.  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

….3.

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 21^st day of April, 2023

2053 – ததரவளளளவவள ஆணளட, சபகதரத சதததளதரர ததஙளகளள 8 ஆமள நவளள வவளளளதககளதழரம

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 193/2018

(CNR NO. TNCH01 – 006114 – 2018)

The Inspector of Police,   K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 40.

(Crime No.196/2018)                                                                            … Complainant

– Vs.-

Rajesh, M/A.22/2018,

S/o. Nagalingam,

No.3/42, Bajanai Koil Street,

Sembulivaram,

Chennai – 67.                                                               …  Accused

 

This Sessions case is taken on file on 08.06.2018 and came up on

11.04.2023  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.  G.Prabhakaran and R.Karthik, Learned Advocates for the Accused and

….2.

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, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.196/2018, before the committal Court of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 20.02.2018 at about 02:00 P.M.  at Anna Nagar Tower Park  the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections  341, 294(b), 326, 307 and 309   P.C.
2. It is alleged that the accused and the injured witness Selvi. Nivetha were school friends and it developed in to a love affair and each other loved since then. Selvi. Nivetha went to college for studied and the accused completed his college education and went for work at Coimbatore and they continued to love. Then the accused tried to dominated her (Selvi.Nivetha) and restrained her from acting at her will and insisted that she should obey by his directions. Therefore, their love affair got strained and Selvi. Nivetha break up the love with the accused and got separated. Aggrieved by the same with the intention commit murder the accused contacted her and informed her that he

….3.

would return all her gifts and love letters an asked her to come and collect it. As she was attending college she informed the accused to come to the Anna Nagar Tower Park, so that she will come at 2:00 P.M., after attending college. Accordingly on 20.02.2018 at about 2:00 P.M. when Selvi. Nivetha met the accused at Tower Park, Anna Nagar, the accused return the love letters and then suddenly pulled a knife and by uttering words “எனகளக கதரடகளகவத நந உயதரடனள   இரகளககளகடவத, ஓதளதவ சவவட , ஒழதநளதபபவட” and inflicted stab injuries on her chest, abdomen and shoulder and caused grievous injuries. Further in the course of the same transaction he attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries to himself with the knife.  Hence the above charge.

3. Cognizance and Committal: The Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, took cognizance of the offences and on

appearance of the accused,  furnished free copies of all the documents, relied on 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, one of the offence alleged to be committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned  Metropolitan Magistrate, vide Order dated 14.05.2018 in

P.R.C. No.46/2018, 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

….4.

the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and made over to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. 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 an offence which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 307, 294(b) and 309 IPC.  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.

Prosecution side evidence:

5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, out of 17 witnesses cited, 10 witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibits ExsP.1 to P.15 and Material Objects P.M.O.1 to P.M.O.12 were marked on the side of the prosecution.  Ex-C1 marked during the cross examination of investigating officer (P.W.10).

….5.

6. The facts set-out from the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution can be briefly narrated as follows:-
   • Nivetha (P.W.1) is the injured witness. Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2) is the mother of the injured (P.W.1). Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) is the independent witness who visited the Tower park, Anna Nagar and witnessed the occurrence. Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) is the friend of Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) who accompanied her at the time of occurrence. Tr.Vignesh (P.W.5) is the independent witness for the preparation of observation mahazar and seizure at the place of occurrence and Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) is the Park Supervisor.
   • Nivetha (P.W.1) has studied M.Sc. Maths. The accused

Tr.Ramesh  was her class-mate while she was studying IX standard.

They studied IX and X standards together. Thereafter, when Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) moved to college, the accused contacted her. They moved as friends and later became lovers. A week before the occurrence the love affair between  Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and the accused broke up and she severed the relationship. On 20.02.2018 the accused sent a message that he would returned back the gift articles given by Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and told her to come to Anna Nagar Tower park to take return of the same. Accordingly, on

….6.

the same day along with her friend Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) she went to Anna Nagar Tower Park. The accused told that her to come alone. When Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) told that she will stand outside the park, Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) told her to come inside and keep her bag and other things and wait, so that she alone would go and talk with the accused and return. Then, they went inside the park Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) handed over her bag to Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) and went to see the accused, telling that the accused is waiting near the restroom at the park. Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) was waiting at the distance of  70 to 100 feet  and sitting in the chair.

6.3. Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) went and met the accused. He returned all the gift of articles to her. After receiving the same when she was about to return, suddenly the accused pulled a knife  from his bag and indiscriminately stabbed her on various parts of the body at 12 places. She sustained deep injuries near her left chest. She screamed and raised alarm by shouting.  Hearing the scream made by Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1), her friend Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) rushed to the spot and saw a crowed over there. When she saw, the accused was holding the hand of  Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) with his left hand and was holding a knife in his right hand.  There was blood stains on the chest and hands of Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1). No one standing there

….7.

dared to near them. Further, she saw Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) was about to faint, but she was able to hear what Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) was telling. Slowly, Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) approached near

Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1)  and asked the accused to drop the knife. While she was nearing them,  two other boys standing there also followed her. She caught hold of Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and thereafter she along with the said boys carried and admitted the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) at Soundarapandian hospital, Anna Nagar.

6.4. Tr.Logesh (P.W.3)  at that time along with his friends had come to Anna Nagar Tower park. When he went to the restroom he saw the accused and the witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) sitting and talking near the bathroom like lovers.  Thereafter, when he returned from the bathroom he saw both were quarreling and the accused attacked the witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) on her right hand, left chest, left abdomen and stabbed her with the knife and he also inflicted injuries by stabbing himself on the back of his body. He along with his friends seeing the injured (P.W.1) fainting  and in a serious condition, took her in an auto and admitted her at Soundarapandian hospital. Later he also came to know that the accused is also admitted in the same hospital and one of the friend of the injured

….8.

namely Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) informed the same to the parents of the injured.

6.5. Dr. Ramasamy (P.W.8) was then working as Medical officer at Soundarapandian Bone and Joint Hospital  at Anna Nagar. At 02:10 P.M. he examined the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) brought by her friend Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) with stab injuries. On examining the injured, she told that a known male person stabbed her with knife at Anna Nagar Tower Park. On examining the injured there were stab injuries on the upper abdomen,  left chest, right forearm, right shoulder, left forearm, left shoulder. He recorded the Accident

Register in  Ex-P.4/P.W.8 in this regard. The patient Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) was given treatment from 20.02.2018 to 28.02.2018 as inpatient.  He gave an opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature and issued the wound certificate in Ex-P.5/P.W.8.

6.6. On the same day on 20.02.2018 at about 2:45 P.M., Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of the injured (P.W.1) received a telephone information from her daughter’s friend Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) that her daughter was stabbed by one boy and told her to come to Soundarapandian hospital. When she went there, her daughter was undergoing treatment at ICU. After her daughter came out of the ICU she found that there was injuries on the chest, abdomen and

….9.

fingers. Her left middle finger nerve was cut and her daughter was unable to move her finger.

6.7. In the meantime Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) was working as Supervisor, Anna Nagar Zone of Chennai Corporation. On 20.02.2018 at 2:00 P.M. he received phone message from Anna Nagar Tower Park supervisor informing him that two lovers are stabbed near Tower

Park toilet.  Immediately he informed Police Control Room in No.100 and came to the place of occurrence. He saw the accused and he was informed that the injured girl was taken to the hospital.

He saw the accused with stabbed injuries on his chest and bleeding. Police came and took the accused to the hospital.

6.8. Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) was then working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police at K4, Anna Nagar Police station. At about 01:55 P.M. on the date of occurrence he received a message from the control room No. 100 directing him to go and see near the toilet at Anna Nagar Tower Park. When he came there at 2:00 P.M.  he saw one male (accused) with bleeding injuries. When he asked the general public present there, they told that the accused tried to murder a girl who was with the accused by stabbing her with knife and that the girl has been taken by her friend to nearby hospital. Then, Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) took the accused to Soundapandian hospital and admitted him for

….10.

treatment. When he examined the accused, he came to know that his name is Rajesh and he and the injured girl were lovers. He then returned to the police station and informed the Inspector of Police.

6.9. On 20.02.2018 at 2:30 P.M.  while Dr.Agastiyasarathy (P.W.9) was on duty as Medical officer  at Sundaram Medical Foundation Hospital, he examined the accused Tr.Rajesh, who was brought by police. On asking the accused he told that he self inflicted stab injuries at Anna Nagar Tower Park. He recorded the accident register in this regard in Ex-P.6/P.W.9. (It was objected for marking Ex-P.6 as the copies were furnished by the accused. Hence before marking the document copies are furnished to the accused and the documents are marked subject to the objection). On examining the injured  Tr.Rajesh (accused), there are injuries on left elbow, on the left of his umbilicus, left forearm and a laceration on left side of back of his body. He was treated in the surgical ward till 08.30 P.M. However he did not give any wound certificate for the accused.

6.10. Tr. Saravanan (P.W.10) was then working as Inspector of Police at

K4, Anna Nagar Police Station, he received intimation from Soundarapandian Bone and Joint hospital and went to the said hospital and recorded the complaint statement  (Ex-P.1) given by Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1), who was undergoing treatment as inpatient.

….11.

Then he returned to the police station at 3:00 P.M. and registered a case in Cr.No. 196/2018 under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 309 IPC. Ex-P.7/P.W.10 is the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered by him. After sending the same to court he took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence at Anna Nagar Tower

Park and in the presence of witnesses Tr.Vignesh (P.W.5) and

Tr.Manikandan (L.W.12) at 3:45 P.M. prepared Observation

Mahazar in Ex-P.2/P.W.5 and Rough-sketch in Ex-P.8/P.W.10. Further,  in the presence of same witnesses he seized a blood stained knife with blue colour handle (P.M.O.1); 4 letters written in English (P.M.O.4) (These letters during cross-examination of Investigation officer (P.W.10) for the purpose of clarity each were separately numbered as Ex-P.12 to Ex-P.15), a black colour mobile phone with Sim-card (P.M.O.5); a watch name written as Casio with steel strap with blood stains (P.M.O.2); black colour bag (P.M.O.6); and the things inside the bag a pink colour blanket (P.M.O.7); a Towel (P.M.O.8); a book Valluvar Vazhiyil Abdul Kalam (P.M.O.9); black colour headset (P.M.O.10); black colour power bank (P.M.O.11); a watch with black colour strap (P.M.O.12);   and baby photos

(P.M.O.3 series) under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.3/P.W.5. Tr.Vignesh (P.W.5) has corroborated the preparation of observation

….12.

mahazar and the seizure of material objects. Ex-P.9/P.W.10 is the photographs showing the above material objects. The seized case properties were sent to Court under Form-95 in Ex-P.10/P.W.10. The Investigating Officer examined the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements.

6.11. Further in continuation of the investigation Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10),

Investigating Officer  examined the injured witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1),  Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4), Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of the injured,  Tr.Subramani (LW.4) Tr.Manikandan (L.W.5)

Tr.Logesh (P.W.3), Tr.Parvesh (L.W.7), Tr.Manikandan (L.W12)

Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6), Tr.Kesavan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.7) and recorded their statements.

6.12. Further he examined the Medical Officer Dr. Ramasamy (P.W.8) who treated the injured and received the Accident Register and Wound Certificate. Based on the investigation he altered the offences to Sections 341, 294(b), 326, 307 and 309 IPC and submitted the alteration report in Ex-P.11/P.W.10.

6.13. Further, in continuation of the investigation he examined Dr.Agastiyasarathy (P.W.9), who treated the accused and recorded his statement. After examining the medical officer Dr.Agesthiya Sarathy (P.W.9), the investigating officer Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10)

….13.

completed the investigation and filed a final report against the accused. During cross-examination of P.W.10 the Wound certificate given for the accused at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital is admitted by the witness and marked as Ex-C1/P.W.10. With the examination of the above witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. The accused obtained anticipatory bail and was released on bail.

Examination of Accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:

7. 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 materials as false and filed his statement of defence under Section 313(5) CrPC which reads as below:-

“வமறளவசவனளன வழககள தலள எனளமநத சமததள  பளபடளட கறளறசளசவடளடகளள அரனதளதமள வபவயளயவக பரனயபளபடளடரவ ஆகமள. நவனமள அ.சவ.1 நதபவதவவமள பளளளதபளபரவமள மதறளவகவணளபட ஒரவரர ஒரவவள வதரமளபத மனதவர கவதலதததள வநளபதவமள. நவனள மதகவமள பதறளபடதளதபளபடளட பவடளரடகளகவர நவயகளகவள (கவடளட நவயகளகவள) சவததரய சவவளநளதவனள . அ.சவ.1 நதபவதவ உயவளசவததயவன ரசவ மதலதயவவள   வகபளரப சவவளநளதவவள. வழகளகதறளக  சதறதத கவலமள மனளபவக நதபவதவவதனள

….14.

வபறளபறவரகளக எஙளகளதனள கவதலள பறளறத வதவதயவநளதத    . எஙளகளள கவதரல மறதயடகளக  அவவளகளள பல வரககளதலள மயறளசத வசயளதவவளகளள    .  ஆனவலள நவனமள நதபவதவவமள  எஙளகளள கவதலதலள உறததயவக இரநளபதவமள   .

நதபவதவவதறளக கடளடவய ததரமணமள வசயளய அவரத வபறளபறவவள ஏறளபவட      வசயளதனவள எனளறமள எனரள  ன பவவளகளகவதடவமலள பபசவதடவமலள கவவலளபபவடளட தடததள    வநளதனவள எனளறமள நதபவதவ எனளனதடமள பதனனள    தடளட கறதனவவள . இநநளதரலயதலள, பவற வழதயதனளறத எபளபடயவவத இரவரமள சநளததகளக பவணளடமள எனளற பநவகளகதலள நவஙளகளள       ஏறளகனபவ வதணளணபளபதததளதரநளத T.N.P.C. பதறளவதறளக வரவதவக கறதவதடளட நதபவதவ எனரள ன 11.02.2018 அனளற சநதள தகளக வநளதவதடளடவவள .

நவஙளகளள இரவரமள பதவவள   எழதவமலள அனளற மவரலவரர பல இடஙளகளதலள    சறளறத ததரநளபதவமள . நதபவதவ, அவரத வபறளபறவவள தஙகள  ளகளக சவதததவனள மககள  தயமள எனளற கறத கவதரல ரகவதடவ வதடளடவலள எனரள     ன வகவரல வசயளத வதடவதவக   மதரடளடவதவகவமள தனகளக பவற நபரடனள ததரமணமள வசயளத ரவகளக தவந       தரமவக ஏறளபவட வசயளத வரவதவகவமள அபளபபவத எனளனதடமள வதவதவததளதவவள. நவனள பயபளபடபவணளடவமள எனளற வசவலளலத 10 நவளதலள வசனரளனகளக வநதள எனத வபறளபறவரர அரழதளத வநதள மரறபளபட வபணளபகடளட எபளபடயவவத அவரத வபறளபறவவதனள சமளமததளரதபவளபறளற ததரமணமள வசயளதவகவளளபவனள எனளற உறததயளததளபதனள.  அதனளபட 20.02.2018 அனளற நவனள வசனரள  னகளக வநளத அனளற  மவரல எனத வபறளபறவரடனள அவரத வடந    ளடறளக வரவதவக நதபவதவவதறளக தகவலள

….15.

வசவனளபனனள. மதலதலள சவத எனளற ஏறளறவவள பதனளப சழநள     தரல சவதயதலளரல எனளறமள நவமள   மதலதலள சநதள தததள பபசதவதடளட பதறக மடவ வசயளத வகவளளள    லவமள எனளறமள கறதனவவள  .                  அதனளபடபய அவவள எனரள  ன அனளற மததய வவகளகதலள டவவள பவவளகள அரபக      வரசளவசவனளனவவள. அவவள ஏபதவ நதவளபநதள  ததளதனள பபவதலள அவளவவற கறவதபபவலள அவவள    பபசசளதலதரநளத பவதநதளவகவளளள மடநளத பபவததலமள, பவற வழதயதனறளத நவனள அணளணவநகவள டவவள பவவளகள வசனளபறனள   . அபளபபவத எனகளக மனளபதனள வதவதயவத சதல    நபவளகளள எனளரன கமளபலவக சழளநதளகளவகவணளட ரக, கவலளகளவலள தவககளதயமள, கதளததகளவலள வவடளடயமள எனகளக பல இடஙளகளதலள வவடளட மறளறமள கதழதபளப கவயஙளகரள ஏறளபடதளததனவவளகளள. அரத பவவளதளத தடகளக வநதள நதபவதவரவயமள கதளததகளவலள தவகளகத கவயபளபடதளததனவவளகளள. தவகளகபளபடளடததலள, நவனள மயகளகமவகத கதபழ வதழநதளவதடளபடனள. பதறக ஆபதளதவன நதரலயதலள சநதளரமள வமடகளகலள பவணளபடஷனள மரதளதவமரனகளக அரழததள   வசலளலபளபடளட பதனளப ரவஜநவள கவநளதத   அரச வபவத மரதளதவமரனகளக அரழதளத வசலளலபளபடளட உளளபநவயவளதயவக

பசவளகளகபளபடளட வதவரமள பதனளப அறதநளபதனள   . அஙளக நவனள  22 நவடளகளள உளளபநவயவளதயவக சதகதசளரச வபறளபறனள. எனகளக ஏறளபடளட 13-களகமள பமறளபட தவநதரமவன மறளறமள ஆழமவன வவடளட மறளறமள கதழதபளப கவயஙளகளகளக அறரவ சதகதசளரச வசயளதமள ரதயலள இடபளபடளடமள, நணள தரள கடலள அறரவ சதகதசளரச (Laparotomy)

வசயளயபடளடமள நவனள உயவள பதரழதபள தனள                                                                                                  .

….16.

நவனள சயமவக கவயஙளகரள ஏறளபடததள   தகளவகவணளபடனள எனளற அரச தரபளபதலள   கறவத அபளபடளடவமவன வபவயள கறளறசளசவடளடவகமள. நவனள சநளதரமள வமடகளகலள பவணளபடஷனள மரததளவமரனகளக வகவணளட வசலலளபளபடளட கவலதளததலள சயநதரனவறளறமள, பபசளச மசளசறளறமள இரநளபதனள. நவனள எநதள மரததளவவதடமள கவயஙளகரள சயமவக ஏறளபடததளதகளவகவணளடதவக வசவலலளவதலளரல.  பமலமள எனகளகமள அ.சவ.1 நதபவதவவதறளகமள இரநதள கவதலள பதறவள தரலயநடனளறத எஙளகளகளகளள ஏறபளபடளட மனகசபபள தனள கவரணமவக மடவகளக வநதள     தவகவமள அதனள வபவரடளட அவவள வகவடததள பவதச வபவரடளகரளயமள கடதஙளகரளயமள ததரபபள த வகவடகளகபவ நவனள டவவள பவவளகள வநளததவகவமள அபளபபவத நவனள நதபவதவரவ கதளததயவலள தவகளகதயதவகவமள கறவத மறளறதலமள வபவயளயவனத    .

நவனள எனத ரகபளரபயதலள எபளவபவழதமள எஙளகளள கவதலதனள நதரனரவ பபவறளறமள       வரகயதலள நதபவதவ எனகளக எழததய சதல கடதஙளகரளயமள சதல வபவரடளகரளயமள       எபளவபவழதமள ரவததளதரபளபபனள. நவனள தவகளகபளபடளட கநபழ வதழமளபபவத வதழநளத சததறதய அநளத வபவரடளகரள ரவதளத அவளவவறவக ஒர கடளடகரத கடளடயளளளவவள       .

அரச சவடளசத -1, நதபவதவ, அரச சவடளசத  3 பலவபகஷள, அரச சவடளசத  4 பரவஷதனத ஆகதபயவவள சமளபவதரள தபளபறளறத நதவளபநளததகளகபளபடளட மதலள வதசவரரணயதலள வபவயளயவக    சவடளசதயமள அளததளதளளளவவளகளள .

வபவயளயவன இவளவழகளரக நதரலகளக ரவகளகமள வபவரடளட    , உணளரமகளக பறமளபவக அரச தரபளப உணரளமயவன பல சவடளசதயஙளகரள மரறதளதமள, வழகளக கறதததள மதலதலள தரபளபடளட தகவலளகரள மரறதளதமள   , சமளபவமள கறததளத உணளரம

….17.

வதவரஙளகரள எடததள  வசவலளலமள மரதளதவ ஆவணஙளகரள மரறதளதமள   , எனகளக ஏறளபடளட கவயஙளகளள கறததளத உணரளம வதவரஙளகரள நதநதமனளறததளதனள பவவளரவயதலள இரநதள மரறததளமள வபவயளயவன வதவரஙளகரள கறத   , வபவயளயவன சவடளசதயஙளகரள மனளனதரலபளபடதளததயளளளனவள.

நவனள இயநதள தர வபவறதயவளவள தரறயதலள இளஙளகரல படளடபளபடபளப படதளத                                   மடததள தறளசமயமள ஒர தனதயவவள நதறவனதளததலள பணதயவறளறத வரகதபறனள. நவனள கணளணதயமவக ஏரழ கடமளபதளததலள பதறநளத சதரமபளபடளட படதளத மதலள படளடதவரத ஆபவனள. எனள மதந    எநதள கறளற வழகளககபளவ , கறளற பதனளனணதபயவ கதரடயவத     . நவனள உயதரகளக உயதரவக கவதலததளத அ.சவ.1 நதபவதவரவ நவனள தவககளத கவயமள ஏறளபடததளதபனனள எனளபத அபததளமவன வபவயளயவன கறளறசளசவடளடவகமள. நவனள பமறளவசவனளனவவற தவகளகபளபடளடத கறததளத எனத தகபளபனவவள அளததளத வவயளவமவழத                                        பகவவள மநத பபவலநசவவள எவவளதத நடவடகளரகயமள எடகளகவதலரளல. நவனள மரததளவமரனயதலள இரநளத வதவரமள அறதநளதமள எனனளதடமமள எவவளதத பகவரள வவகளகமலமள வவஙளகத வழகளக பததவ வசயளத வதசவவதகளக பபவலநசவவள மனளவரவதலளரல                                                     . பபவலநசவவள எனத தரபளரப பகடளகவமலள                         , தவனள தவகளகபளபடளடத கறததளத எனனள               தடமள எநதள

வவகளகமலமமள வபறவமலமள மரறயவக வதசவவதகளகவமலமள ஒரதரலபடளசமவக வதரசவரரண வசயளத வழகளக பபவடளடளளளவவளகளள   .

எனபவ மவடளசதமதக ஐயவ அவவளகளள எனத இநதள                                        வதளகளகவரரரய ஏறளற வழகளகதலதரநளத எனரளன வதடதரல வசயளத நதநத வழஙளகமவற பணதநளத

பதரவவதளததளதகள பகடளடகளவகவளகள              தபறனள.”

….18.

8. Thus the defence of the accused is that of total denial and that in order to separate the loving couples due to communal difference he and the victim (P.W.1) were attacked some unknown persons who surrounded him and attacked him first and then when the victim (P.W.1) came to prevent those person, she  was also attacked by them. Further,  it is his defence that a complaint  given by his father regarding this incident was not considered by the police. The accused further reported that he got defence witness, but later closed his defence without examining any witnesses on  his side.

Point for determination:

9. Now the point that arise for determination in this case is; Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, under Sections 307, 294(b) and 309 P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

On the Point :

10. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. Both side filed their respective written arguments.
11. On careful examination of the written arguments and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, there is no dispute regarding the

….19.

identity of the injuries witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and the accused. Further, there inter se relationship as lovers is also not denied or disputed on the side of the accused. Admittedly they were school mates. There friendship germinated in to a deep lover affair since their school days and continued as they moved to college. The injured victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) went to study M.Sc.(Maths) and the accused also pursued his college education in Engineering and then got employed at Coimbatore and their love still continued.

12. According to the prosecution as the accused tried to imposed dominance over the injured victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and retrained her freedom their relationship got strained and the injured victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) decided to break up the love affair with the accused and terminated the relationship. Hence, the accused got furious and stage played the attack on the victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) by making her to meet him under the pretext of returning the love letter and gift articles given by her.
13. The presence of the accused at the the place, date and time of occurrence is not denied or disputed on the side of the accused. He is also found with injuries at the place of occurrence and taken to hospital. Therefore, from the testimonies of the occurrence witnesses and from the admission  made by the accsued in his statement of defence, the presence of the accsued at the place, date and time of occurrence is proved.

….20.

Arguments:

14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor referring to the testimony of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution contended that;

• the compliant and FIR is lodged without day mentioning the

name of the accused as the assailant, that soon after receiving intimation from the hospital Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10) has gone to the hospital and received the complaint statement from the injured victim (P.W.1) and then returned to the police station and registered the FIR, that the injured victim (P.W.1) has stated about her conscious state while giving the complaint statement and it is corroborated by the medical evidence, and that the other informations about the occurrence elicited during the cross-examination of the witnesses cannot be considered as first information and it could not have reached the police station before the registration of the FIR.;

• the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses and that the testimony of the injured eye-witness has great evidential value which cannot be discarded easily except for compelling reasons and cited the decision reported in Sadakt Kotwar and another Vs. State of Jhakhand (LL 2021 SC 643 );

….21.

• the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses (P.W.1) is corroborated in material particulars by the other occurrence witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 whose presence is proved from the other facts and circumstances of the case;
• that minor and immaterial contradiction and inconsistencies elicited during cross examination of the witnesses cannot be a ground to disregard the prosecution case;
• that the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the weapon used and the vital parts in which the injuries are caused to the victim (P.W.1), and cited the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mansingh;
• that there are clear and cogent evidence to prove that the accused inflicted injures to the victim as well as to himself, that the prosecution has produce medical evidence to prove that the accused suffered self inflicted injuries and was taken by admitted at the hospital, hence the injuries sustained by the accused is clearly explained by the accused;
• that the accused having suffered injuries has not made any

compliant soon after the occurrence or later alleging attempt for honour killing by the family members of the victim (P.W.1) to separate them and it is for the first time such defence is taken at the time of trial which will destroy the defence taken by the accused;

….22.

• that the prosecution has produced clear and cogent materials to prove the occurrence and complicity of the accused in committing the crime as charged.

15. Per contra vehemently refuting the above arguments on the side of the prosecution the learned Advocate of the accused contented that;

• there is no material in the evidence produced by the prosecution to attract the offence under Section 294(b) IPC to show that the accused uttered any obscene words in the public place, hence the the charge under Section

294(b) IPC is not proved;

• that to prove the charge under Section 309 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused self inflicted injuries, that the eye-witnesses Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and Selvi.Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) not testified as to how the accused sustained injuries;
• that evidence of Tr.Lokesh (P.W.3) cannot be relied upon since his evidence that the accused self inflicted injuries by stabbing on his own back of the body is proved to be a contradiction and improved version which is not stated in the police statement and that such injury on the back of body cannot be self inflicted as it is not possible to have free access to that part of the body, and that Lokesh (P.W.3) would admit during cross-examination that he has not

….23.

seen how many persons attacked the accused and caused injuries would indicate the possibility of the accused being attacked by several persons;

• that there is no medical evidence to show that the injuries are self-inflicted and that as per Ex-C.1 (wound certificate) issued at Government Hospital the accused had undergone several surgical treatment, the records of which are suppressed by the prosecution as it would disclose that the injuries could not be self inflicted, and that the doctor (P.W.9) has stated that the injuries are laceration and cut injuries that could be caused when attacked by several persons with different weapon, which would caused doubt upon the version projected by the prosecution;
• that it is elicited during cross-examination that accused was not conscious when taken to Soundarapandian Hospital and that history of self inflicted injuries could not be given by the accused, that the doctor (P.W.9) has recorded that same as per the version given by the police who brought the accused to hospital;
• that Section 115 of Mental Health Act, 2017 has decrminalised the offence under Section 309 IPC and therefore the charge under Section 309 IPC is not sustainable. The decision reported in 2019 SCC Online Madras Pg. 21769 ( Maria Raja Alphonse Vs. State) is referred on the side of the accused;

….24.

• that regarding the charge under Section 307 IPC the prosecution has not proved the motive and causative factor for the occurrence by proving the break-up of love affair, that Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) has not deposed that the love affair was terminated due to the dominant attitude shown by the accused, that it is admitted by Nivetha (P.W.1) that on 11.02.2018 she met the accused and there was no meeting thereafter till date of occurrence on 20.02.2018, so there is no possibility of she meeting the accused and expressing the break-up of love, that no witnesses have deposed about the alleged break-up and the reason for the same, that the cell phone communications and message relevant to such break-up of love affair are not produce to prove the alleged motive for the occurrence;
• that on the other hand it is prove from the evidence of Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of victim (P.W.1) that she warned her daughter (P.W.1) about the relationship with the accused and that her family is against inter-caste marriage by eliciting the fact that the brother of father of the victim married a girl from another community and so his family and business tie with him was severed, and therefore the love affair was put at stake on account of the intervention by the parents of the victim due to caste difference, which would support the defence of the accused that some hired unknown men have caused the occurrence;

….25.

 

that the reading of the love letters in Ex-P.12 to P.15 written by

the victim (P.W.1) would go to show that she was under the apprehension that her parents would separate them and their love affair would terminate, which would disprove the motive attributed by the prosecution;

• that during cross-examination at one place the victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) would admit the suggestion that the henchmen sent by her parents attacked them at the place of occurrence which would destroy the entire prosecution case;
• that there is material elicited in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 and the investigating officer (P.W.10) that it was the victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) who sent message and invited the accused to come to the place of occurrence and not the accused, which would indicate that it was victim Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) who was keen in bringing the accused to the place of occurrence, hence the case of the prosecution that the accused made the victim to come under the pretext of returning the gifts cannot be believed;
• that the evidence of other eye-witnesses Tr.Lokesh (P.W.3) and Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) cannot be believed as they would admit during crossexamination that they came to the scene of occurrence only after the victim

….26.

(P.W.1) sustained injuries and they have not seen the accused inflicting injuries to the victim (P.W.1);

• that Tr.Lokesh (P.W.3) is shown as independent witness to the occurrence and failing to conduct test identification parade would make his evidence weak, and that he being a chance witness not giving any reason for his presence at the scene of occurrence and his admission that he knows that names of P.Ws 1 and 4 and where they are studying, would discredit him as an independent witness and therefore being already a known person his evidence cannot be believed;
• that evidence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) that she told the accused to drop the knife is prove to be an improved version which she has not stated in her earlier police statement and that she admits that she has not seen the accused inflicting the injuries and that she speaks about the presence of several persons around the accused which could belie the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted injuries  to victim (P.W.1). The case reported in 2009 (11) SCC Pg. 106 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh) is relied by the learned Counsel for the accused to disbelieve the improved version given by the Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4);

….27.

that the medical evidence for the victim (P.W1) in Ex-P4 and ExP.5 are bereft of all essential particulars regarding the measurements and directions of the injuries and it is also mentioned in the wound certificate as RTA (Road Traffic Accident), which would cause doubt about the injuries suffered by the injured victim (Selvi. Nivetha/P.W.1);

• that the M.O.1 knife is not shown to the doctor to prove that the injuries are possible with such weapon and that detail medical case sheet is not produce to show that the injuries caused to Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) is likely to cause death, and that the medical evidence is shabby and defective;
• that the prosecution has failed to properly explain as to how the accused sustained injuries through the occurrence witnesses which will cause legal impact on the veracity of the witnesses, and that the omission by the occurrence witnesses to speak about the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence would indicate that they have come to Court by suppressing the truth and the material part of the occurrence;
• that the omission by the investigating officer to collect all the medical records for the treatment undergone by the accused and the nonexamination of the medical officer from Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGH) would indicate that the prosecution has deliberately suppress

….28.

the vital material as it will go against the accused, therefore an adverse inference may be drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act;

• the decisions reported in 1997 (1) MWN (Crl) Page No.120

(relevant portion in Para 13), 2002 MWN Criminal Page 113 (relevant para in

17 & 18), 2006 (2) MWN Criminal Page 72 (relevant par in 8 & 10), 2018 (7)

SCC Page 536 (relevant para in 29 to 32) and 2021 SCC Online SC 1099 (relevant portion in para 48 to 50 ) were relied on the side of the accused in supported of the contention regarding non-explanation injuries on the accused;

➔ that the original and actual first information about the occurrence received at the police station is suppressed and an FIR is registered based on belated compliant (Ex-P.1) foisted as  if it was given by the injured Selvi.

Nivetha (P.W.1), that Ex-P.1 could not have been given by the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) at the hospital as he was unconscious when brought to the hospital, that the doctor (P.W.8) has recorded in the accident register that the patient was drowsy and that on the same date she was given surgical treatment by administrating anesthecia and she gained conscious only on the next day, that the doctor  (P.W.8) has not stated that police came and recorded the statement from Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and that the patient was conscious, hence Ex-P1 could not be given by Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1), which cause doubt upon the very foundation of the prosecution case;

….29.

that there had been multiple complaints and the earlier

complaints aresuppressed, that the special report is given by Tr.Kesavan (P.W.8)

Special Sub-Inspector of Police based on the information given by T.Kannan (P.W.6), park supervisor to the control room, and the information collected from the place of occurrence by examining the eye-witnesses, and that special report given to the Inspector of Police, will amout to first information which had detaild the real occurrence is suppressed by the prosecution to foist a case against the accused;

• that the investigating officer (P.W.10) would admit that he came to know from the statement given by P.W.2 (mother of victim) and father of the victim during his investigation that one Roselin, friend of the victim, who accompanied her to the hospital has given a complaint to the Anna Nagar police, which is also a previous complaint that is suppressed;
• that the FIR (Ex-P.7) registered based on the subsequent complaint (Ex-P.1) by suppressing the earlier complaint would cause serious doubt upon the prosecution case.
• that the non-examination of one Roselin, who accompanied the victim to the hospital and the park security staff Tr.Ramesh, who gave

….30.

information to Tr.Kannan (P.W.6) park supervisor are fatal to the prosecution case;

• that the contention on the side of the prosecution that the evidence of the injuries eye-witness deserved greater evidential value cannot be sustained when there are other materials to discredit the same. The learned counsel for accused referred to the decision in A. No. 741/2002 (Madras High Court) para 14 where it is  observed that the Court should have an dispassionate approach and should have caution in mind which examining the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses.
• Based on the above points it is submitted that the charges against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Discussion:

16. The occurrence took place on 20.02.2018 at about 2:00 P.M. atAnna Nagar Tower Park. As discussed supra the presence of accused at the place, date and time of occurrence is proved.

COMPLAINT AND FIRST INFORMATION REPORT:

17. The accused challenged the genuineness of the complaint and it origin that it has given by the injured witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1). It is his

….31.

 

contention that complaint (Ex-P.1) could not be given by Selvi.Nevitha (P.W.1) since she was unconscious when taken to the hospital.

18. On perusing the evidence of injured witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1), she would categorically deposed that after the attack she got fainting and that she was taken to the hospital by her friend Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) and after giving first aid she got consciousness and at that time she gave a complaint statement to the police. She has clearly deposed that;

“எனளனரடய பதவழத       எனளபனவட மரததளவமரனயதலள     இரநளதவவள.

ஆஸளபததளதவதயதலள எனகளக மதலதவத வகவடதளதவவளகளள   . எனகளக ஓரளவ சயநதரனவ  ததரமளபதயவடனள பபவலநஸள எனளரன வதசவவததளதவவளகளள. நவனள அவவதடமள நடநளத சமளபவதரளத பறளறத வவகளகமலமள வகவடதளபதனள. எனள வவகளகமலதரளத பகவரவக எழததகளவகவணளடவவளகளள. எனளனதடமள கவடளடபளபடவததவனள நவனள  வகவடதளத பகவவள வவகளகமலமள ஆகமள . அநதள பகவவள வவகளகமலமள அ  .த.சவ.ஆ.1.”

19. The above version of Nivetha (P.W.1)  is cogently corroborated by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10), who would deposed that on

20.02.2018 he received the intimation from Soundarapandian Bone and Joint

Hospital  and he went there and recorded the statement given by Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1)  and then returned to the police station at 03:00 P.M. and registered F.I.R. in Ex-P.7/P.W.10.

….32.

20. It is contended on the side of the accused that the victim could not be conscious because it is not recorded in the Accident-Register by the doctor and that during cross examination it is elicited that Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) has undergone surgery on the same day and only thereafter she could have been examined. No doubt Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and the other eye-witnesses

Tr.Lokesh (P.W.3) and Selvi.Roshini (P.W.3) would state that the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) fainted soon after the occurrence and she was taken to hospital. Dr.Ramasamy (P.W.8)  would admit that he has not specifically recorded that the victim was able  to speak and oriented, but, he has clearly recorded that patient was drowsy and obeying commands. Therefore, as per the the medical evidence Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) has not totally become unconscious when she was brought to the hospital. She was semi conscious and able to respond for commands, which indicates that she was able to under stand and act according to the command. In fact,  Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) would say that after first aid she gained consciousness and gave the complaint statement. When the injured  Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) was confronted in this regard during during cross examination she has withstand the tenor of cross examination and reaffirmed her stand that she gave a complaint statement  and sign the same before she was given further statement. She has deposed as below:

….33.

“எனரளன இவளவழகளக சமளபநதளமவக எததளரன மரற வதசவவததளதவவளகளள எனளற கறதபளபதடளட ஞவபகமள இலரளல. பபவலநசவவள எததளரன தவளதலள எனளனதடமள ரகவயழதளத வவஙளகதனவவள எனளறமள ஞவபகமள இலரள    ல. பபவலநசவவள எழததய தவளதலமள  எழதவத தவளதலமள ரகவயழதளத வவஙளகதனவவளகளவ எனளற பகடளடவலள அநதள சமயதளததலள எனகளக கவனளசதயஸள இலரளல. எனகளக மயகளக மரநளத வகவடதளத அறரவ சதகதசளரச மடநளத மறநவளள கவரலயதலளதவனள சயநதரனவ வநளதத. மறநவளள தவனள பபவலநசவவள எனளரன வதசவவததளதவவளகளவ எனளறவலள சமளபவமள நடநதள அனளற மததயமள பபவலநசவவள பகவவள வவஙளகமளபபவத பபவலநஸள வதசவவததளதவவளகளள. அதனளபதனளப அனளரறயததனமள வதசவவததளதவவளகளவ எனளற ஞவபகலள இலரள     ல.”

21. So, it is clear evidence that after taken to the hospital she regained consciousness and she gave complaint statement and only thereafter she was take for further treatment and surgery. So, her evidence that during the intervening time she gave the complaint statement is highly probable and can be believed. Therefore, the evidence of injured witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10) would clearly go to show that the complaint statement was given by the injured witness Selvi.Nivetha. The contention that the doctor has not made endorsement in the complaint does not hold water in the light of the evidence given by Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1).

….34.

22. It is further submitted on the side of the accused that the complaint statement is not recorded by Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10) and he is unable to say by whom it was recorded. This alone cannot be a ground to discredit the complaint  when the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) has identified the complaint statement and deposed that it was given by her. Normally, the Inspector of Police take the assistance of his subordinate to write down the compliant and statements, so,  it cannot be  a ground to doubt the complaint when there are other attending evidence to prove the Complaint (Ex-P.1).
23. Further, it is submitted on the side of the accused that even before registering the F.I.R., there were other information received at the police station that would constitute the first information for registering the case, so, the Complaint (Ex-P.1) cannot be treated as first information and that investigation is already commences based  on the  earlier information. This contention also does not hold water.
24. On scrutinizing the evidence the first information received at the police station would be the complaint (Ex-P.1) given by the victim (P.W.1) and not the other informations which are referred on the side of the accused. It could have reached the police station only thereafter. Because, on perusing the evidence of Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) and Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7). Ganesan (P.W.6) has deposed that he was informed at about 2:00 P.M., by his park supervisor that

….35.

one lover  couples were stabbed in the park and that he immediately call the police control room and gave message to the control room and went to the Tower park and saw the accused with injuries. So, it is not his evidence that he gave information to the police station. He had given information only to the police control room.

25. Confirming it, Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) the Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Anna Nagar Police Station has deposed that he received information from the control room to go to the park and see near the restroom and when he went to the scene  of occurrence he found the accused with injuries and enquired the public, who told him that the accused stabbed his lover and attempted to murder her and that he then took the injured accused and admitted him at Soundarapandi Hospital.
26. The medical evidence given by Dr.Agasthiya Sarathy (P.W.9) and the accident registered (Ex-P.6/P.W.9) would prove the fact that the accused brought by a police at Sundaram Medical Foundation hospital at about 2:30 P.M. Only thereafter Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) could have gone to the police station and given a Special Report to the Inspector of Police (P.W.10). But, by that time the injured witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) is already admitted in the same hospital at 02:10 P.M. and intimation is sent to the police. Based on the intimation Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10) Inspector of Police had already gone to the

….36.

hospital and recorded the complaint statement and returned to the police station at 03:00 P.M. and registered F.I.R. Therefore even assuming that Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) has given a special report as contended on the side of the accused, he could have  met the Inspector of Police (P.W.10) only after he has returned to the police station after  recording the Complaint (Ex-P.1) for the Victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and brought  it to the police station.  There is no material to show that Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) met the Inspector of Police (P.W.10) and gave his report before the recording of the Compliant statement.  Only after the Inspector of Police (P.W.10)  had recorded the complaint statement from injured witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and returned to the police station Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) could have met him and given his special report. By that time the first information in the form of Ex-P.1 complaint statement is in the hands of the

Station House officer (Inspector of Police/P.W.10) and the F.I.R. (ExP.7/P.W.10) is registered.

27. Moreover, the procedure Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7), Special SubInspector of Police, followed after receiving the message from control room is indicated by him as below;

“நவனள சமளபவமள  இடமள வசனளற சவடளசதகரள  வதசவவததளதவலள வவகளகமலமள பததவ வசயளயபவணளடமள எனளறவலள சவததவனள.  அவளவவற நவனள வதசவவதததளபபவத எததளரன பபவதடமள  வவகளகமலமள பததவ வசயளபதனள  எனளறவலள அததலள  வவகளகமலமள

….37.

நவனள பததவ வசயளய பதரவயதலளரல   . கவவலள கடளடபளபவடளட அரறதயதலதரநளத தகவலள   வநளதவலள பரவநளத பணதயதலள இரநளத நவனள அரதபளபபவயள அடளடணளடள வசயளதவதடளட கவவலள ஆயளவவளவதடமள தகவலள தரபவணளடமள. அவளவவற நவனள தகவலள வசவனளனபபள தறக கவவலள ஆயளவவளவள ஒர உதவத ஆயளவவளரர சமளபவ இடமள அனபளபவவவள. அவவள வவகளகமலமள பததவ வசயளவவவள. இநளத வழககளதலள அவளவவற அனபளபபளபடளட கவவலள உதவத ஆயளவவளவள வபயவள எனளன எனளறவலள ஞவபகமள இலரள        ல.”

28. This would indicate that Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) was not at thepolice station when he received the information from the control room and he was on patrol duty. On receiving information from the control room he had gone to the scene of occurrence and after making a formal inquiry with the public present there, he has taken the accused to the hospital and admitted him. Only then he had gone to the police station. By the time the Inspector of Police Tr.Saravanan (P.W.10) has already recorded the complaint statement from the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and registered  I.R. at 03:00 P.M. There is no material to show from the evidence of Tr.Kesavan, Special sub-Inspector of

Police (P.W.7) that he had given the special report about the occurrence to the

Inspector of Police before 03:00 P.M. i.e. before registering before the F.I.R.

Hence, the contention on the side of the accused that the information given by

Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) to the control room and special report given by Tr.Kesaan,

Special Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.7) has to be  treated as first information for

….38.

registering the F.I.R. cannot be  sustained. Further, the  contention submitted on the side of the accused that the earlier complaint has been suppressed cannot be also sustained.

29. Further, it is  argued on the side of the accused that it is proved that as  per the the police statement recorded from Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of victim (P.W.1) and from  the father of the Victim  (P.W.1) that they has made  a statement to police that one Roselin, friend  of the Victim (P.W.1) had taken the victim to the hospital and lodged a complaint, which is suppressed. Further it is the contention of the accused that Roselin and Roshini (P.W.4) are two different person and Roselin is  not before this Court.
30. This contention is made taken advantage of the confusion in pronouncing the name of P.W.4. In fact Roshini (P.W.4) is the friend who accompanied the victim (P.W.1) to the Tower Park and she has taken the  victim (P.W.1) to  The investigation officer has clearly explained that the name of Roshini (P.W.4) is only wrongly written as Roselin in the 161 statement. So, the  accused taken advantage of this confusion or mistake in pronouncing the name of Roshini (P.W.4).  Moreover,  Roshini (P.W.4) is  not confronted with giving such complaint. She has not stated that she has given any complaint to the police. It is admitted by Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2) that she gave a statement to police that one Roselin told that a compliant is given at

….39.

Anna Nagar Police station, which is also confirmed  by the Inspector of Police. But, on seeing the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), it is  not mentioned that  Roselin had given Complaint. It is only mentioned that a complaint is given with Anna Nagar Police. By whom it is given is not mentioned. May be that after the victim (P.W.1) was admitted in the hospital the police (P.W.10) has come and recorded the complaint statement. Roshini (P.W.4) would have referred to it and would have informed the parents that a complaint is given with Anna Nagar Police. So, the accused cannot taken advantage of the 161 statement made by Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), regarding the lodging of complaint with Anna Nagar Police, which is not specifically mentioned by whom the compliant was given. In fact Roshini (P.W.4) would depose in crossexamination that police came to the hospital and recorded her statement on the same date. As the investigating officer has reached the hospital and recorded the complaint (Ex-P.1) from the victim, it is quit natural that  he would has examined Roshini (P.W.4) who took the victim to the hospital and was present at the hospital. So, she could has referred to such inquiry and told that complaint is given to the Anna Nagar police station. Therefore, the contention  in this regard submitted on the side of the accused cannot be sustained.

31. Hence, from the above discussed materials this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly proved the complaint in Ex-P.1

….40.

was given by P.W.1(Selvi. Nevitha) at the hospital, based on which the the F.I.R. has been duly registered by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) and there is no material to suspect the complaint and the F.I.R.

32. Furthermore Ex-P.7/P.W.10 is not a printed F.I.R. which is used to be prepared before the coming into vogue of the computer generated First Information Report through the police portal. Ex-P.7/P.W.10 is computer generated First Information Report, which is generated using the police department portal.  Therefore, at the time of registering the F.I.R. it will be recorded in the police department portal. So, it cannot be said that the FIR is registered with a delay paving way for concoction. The occurrence has taken place at 02:00 P.M. and the F.I.R.(Ex-P.7/P.W.10) has come to be  registered at 03:00 P.M.  without any material delay  to doubt its veracity. There is no possibility  of embellished and improvement in registering the F.I.R. No doubt the F.I.R. has reached on the Court on the next date at 12:00 noon, but within 24 hours from the time of registering F.I.R.. As it is proved that the F.I.R. is registered in Police department portal at 3:00 P.M., mere delay in sending it to Court on the next day cannot cause doubt upon the prosecution case.
33. Therefore, the contention on the side of the accused that the earlier complaints were suppressed by the prosecution cannot be  Further, the contention  that real occurrence in which the accused and victim

….41.

were attacked by  some third person has  been suppressed and a false complaint is fabricated due to communal difference also cannot be sustained in view  of the other materials available on records which are to be discussed in the later part this judgment.

MOTIVE:

34. It is contended on the side of the accused while the accused and the injured witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) were in deep love affair for several years, she has not deposed  before this court any specific reason for breaking up the love affair with the accused, which will raise doubt on the motive attributed for committing the crime. Further, it is  contended by the accused that the family members of the victim (P.W.1) where opposed to their love due to communal difference and that it was the family members of the victim (P.W.1) who had engaged some third parties to attach both accused and the victim (P.W.1), which has been  deliberately suppressed by the witnesses and the prosecution to foist a false case against the accused.
35. As per the prosecution the accused executed dominance over victim and curtailed her freedom, due to which the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) break up the love affair.  Nivetha (P.W.1) has deposed that she and the accused were class-mate  while they are studying IX and X Standard and

….42.

thereafter when she went to the college the accused contacted her and their friendship blossomed into love affair. She would further state one week before the occurrence she break-up the love affair and severed her relation with the accused. As rightly pointed out on the side of the accused, the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) is not given any specific reason for breaking up the love affair. Neither the other corroborating witnesses, Tmt.Kanjana (P.W.2) mother of the injured (P.W.1) or Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) friend of P.W.1  have deposed about the reason for the  break-up. However, the fact that Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) has break up the love affair with the accused is clearly established from her evidence even though she has not given any reason that acted as the spark for the accused to perpetrate the crime.

36. Ex-P.12 to Ex-P.15 are the love letters that are seized from the place of occurrence. These letters are not disputed. They are written by the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) to the accused.  On perusing those love letters it would indicate the deep love she expressed for the accused. She has also expressed that their love affair may be opposed by her parents and she might not know what she would do if such thing happens. So, it will show the extent to which she loved the accused and expressed it to him. But, suddenly, a week before the occurrence the Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) has gone for a break-up that would have really shattered the accused and caused hatred towards the victim. It

….43.

is also elicited during cross examination of P.W.1 (Selvi.Nevitha) that prior to the occurrence on 11.02.2018 both of them met for writing T.N.P.S.C. examination. But without taking the examination they had gone outside and spent the day together. Only thereafter on 20.02.2018 the occurrence is said to be taken place. It is contended that P.W.1 (Selvi.Nevitha) would admit that she didn’t contact the accused after her last meeting with the accused on 11.02.2018 and therefore the question of she expressing break-up of love is not possible and only due to pressure given by the parents the accused is made  to come to Tower Park to attack him.

37. On carefully perusing the evidence of P.W.1 (Selvi.Nevitha), shehad not stated that she didn’t contact the accused after 11.02.2018. She has only stated that she has did not meet the accused after 11.02.2018. She has clearly stated that only one week before the date of occurrence she told breakup of her love with the accused and severed it. As the date of occurrence is 20.02.2018,  one week prior to it will be on 12.03.2018. So, only after her last meeting with the accused on 11.02.2018 things have taken a ugly turn resulting in the break-up of the love affair. So, the fact that the victim P.W.1 (Selvi.Nevitha) had severe her love affair is proved from her evidence. So, the omission  to give reason by her cannot be considered material to discredit her evidence in the fact and other attending circumstance of the case. In fact it will

….44.

strengthen the motive for the accused because suddenly having loved the accused for such a long years she had gone for break up and rejected his love for her.

38. The contention on the side of the accused that due to communal difference the accused was made to come and he was attacked cannot be sustained. The victim (P.W.1) has clearly deposed that the accused contacted her for returning her gift articles by sending a message. In fact it is elicited and proved during cross examination of Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and from the complaint in Ex-P.1/P.W.1 that she had sent message to meet the accused at

Anna Nagar Tower Park after attending her college on the date of occurrence.

Accordingly, the accused had met the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) at Anna

Nagar Tower Park. The fact that the Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) wanted to go Tower Park to meet the accused to take return of her gift articles and love letter is corroborated by Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4), to whom she has disclosed the facts and asked her to accompany her to the park. Therefore, the omission and contraction pointed out on the side of the accused regarding sending message and asking the accused to come Tower park are not material to discredit her testimony. As the accused invited her to return the articles, she in the normal course asked him to come to the Anna Nagar Tower Park for taking return of the same. Therefore, merely because the injured (P.W.1) fixed the place and time of meeting cannot

….45.

raise doubt upon the prosecution version when there are other clear evidence to prove the occurrence.

39. In fact in the statement of defence filed by the accused under Section 313(5) CrPC he has stated that he was in possession of the gift articles and love letters given by the victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) in his bag when he came to the place of occurrence (i.e. Anna  Nagar Tower Park), which would fortify the prosecution case regarding the purpose for which the accused wanted to meet the victim. After the occurrence the gift articles and love letters written by the victim were found lying in the place of occurrence and the same has been seized by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) and produced as material objects in this court, which will strengthen the prosecution version of the case.
40. Further, it is admitted case of the accused that when he proposed to bring his parents propose marriage talk with the family of the victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1), she has refused for it. This would further establish that the victim has decided to severe the love affair with the accused once for all break-up from him. Therefore,  the motive for the occurrence and the  purpose for which the accused wanted to meet the victim are clearly proved by the prosecution from the evidence of  injured witness Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1).  Roshini (P.W.4) would corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding these fact that the victim came to Anna Nagar Tower Park to meet the accused for taking

….46.

return of the gift articles. Hence the motive is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt

41. Further only in case of circumstantial evidence motive is

significant. In case of direct evidence motive will only be an adding factor. In the case  of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC 654, 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

….47.

of the offence, but the evidence of the eyewitnesses is found 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.”

42. Thus applying the above dictum, the motive proved in this case will be an added factor to prove the complicity of the Even in the absence of proof of motive, when the eye-witnesses inspires credibility  the absence of evidence to prove the motive will be rendered inconsequential. However, in the case on hand there is evidence to prove that  the accused had strong motive  because the victim (P.W.1) suddenly break-off the love with the accused and  severe his relationship.

Charge under Sections 307 and 309 IPC :

43. The presence of the accused at the place, date and time of

occurrence is not denied.  He is also injured in the occurrence, whether it is self

….48.

inflicted injuries or otherwise need to be discussed.  Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) is the injured eye witness. As pointed out on the side of the prosecution in the observation made in Sadakt Kotwar and another Vs. State of Jhakhand  (LL

2021 SC 643 ) it is held that as held in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of  an injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. It cannot be further be disputed that as pointed out on the side of the accused it is observed in CrlA. no. 741/2002 (Sadayandi @ Jayaraman Vs. State by Inspector of Police, dated 19.10.2004 Hon’ble Madras High Court) at para 14 that the Court should have an dispassionate approach and should have caution in mind which examining the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses.

44. Proceeding to examine the eye-witnesses in the back drop on the above legal pronouncement, the evidence of Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) being an injured eye-witness has got a greater evidentiary value. There should be strong reasons to disregard the same. She has clearly and cogently deposed attributing clear overtacts againt the accused for causing injuries to her. As such she was having deep love for the accused as evident from the love letters in Ex-P.12 to Ex-P.15. She has in fact expressed she does not know what she would do if they are separated. That being the depth of the love, it is not easy for her to come  up

….49.

with the false evidence to falsely implicate her lover with such grave crime if he is not the real culprit. Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) having deep love for the accused and expressed the extent to which she loved the accused in the love letters, would not easily let the real culprits to escape from law and choose to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore the defence of the accused that due to communal difference, the family members have stage played the attack and foisted a false case against the accused cannot be believed. Further, the contention on the side of the accused that due to only communal difference and pressure given by her family the injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) has yielded to her parents and has deposed against the accused also cannot be sustained. Having suffered multiple grievous injuries in the hands of the accused, there is no need for her false implicate him if he is not the real culprits.

45. The Learned counsel for the accused had vehemently focused his defence by taking advantage of the communal difference and relied upon the admission made by the Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of the victim, that the parents of the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1)  had excommunicated the brother of the victim’s father from their family business and family due to he conducting marriage with the girl from another community. Though this fact is admitted by P.W.2, mother of the victim, there is no other material to establish that the parent of the victim were acting against the love affair. There is no such material

….50.

to show that the family members of the victim after coming to know about the love affair had any time approached the accused and warned him in any manner. There is no evidence that they had even seen the accused or approached him in any  manner. Ordinarily, when such love affair comes to the knowledge of the parents of the girl, they would at first approach the boy and either condemn him or warn him from pursing his  love affair. There is no such incident. It is not the case of the accused that the family members of the victim girl l(P.W.1) had at any time approached him and warned him. In fact the victim girl (P.W.1) would state that two years prior to the occurrence her parents warned her about her love affair. Even then she continued to love the accused and there was not trouble caused to by the parents of the victim (P.W.1).  In fact Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2) at one place while answering the suggest put to her that they are not having mind set to accept inter community marriage, she has deposed that;

“நவனமள எனத   கணவரமள கவதலள ததரமணமள மறளறமள பவற சமதவயதளததலள     ததரமணமள வசயளவரத ஏறளறகளவகவளளளமள மனமள உரடயவவளகளள அலலள எனளறவலள சவதயலளல. சவடளசத தவனவக தனள ரமதளதனரகளகமள தனள தமளபதகளகமள பவற சமகதளததனரர ததரமணமள வசயளத ரவததளதவக வசவலகளதறவவள. நவனள தவறவக வசவலளகதபறனள எனளறமள , எனள கணவவதனள தமபள தயதனள கவதலள ததரமணமள      மறளறமள எனள மகளதனள கவதலள ததரமணமள இரணளரடயமள கடரமயவக எததவளதளபதவமள எனளறவலள

சவதயலளல.”

….51.

46. Therefore, inter-communal marriage is not new to the family of the victim. That being a case, there is no need for them to plan an attack against the accused. But, from the  suggestion put to the witness in this regard, there is absolutely no other material to establish that the family members of the victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1)  were taking steps to separate the victim from the accused in any manner. It is quite natural that every parents would warn, condemn and advise their girl child if she is indulging in love affair. Similarly, Tmt.Kanchana (P.W.2), mother of the victim have also stated that when she came to know about her daughter love affair she warned her. That itself is not sufficient to infer that they have engaged some goons to do away with the  accused, when there are other direct evidence to prove the complicity of the accused in committing the crime.
47. The occurrence has taken place in a broad daylight at about 2:00 P.M. in Anna Nagar Tower Park. There were public and security persons and many other persons. There is no material to show that any of them has told anyone that a mob of persons  have attacked both the accused and the victim and caused injuries.
48. But, for the admission made  by the witnesses Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) and Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) that they does not know whether the accused was assaulted by any other person, there is no material place on evidence to show

….52.

that  the accused and the victim were attacked by some other  unknown persons. Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) would admit that “ நவனள வரவதறளக மனளப எதளதரன பபவள    எததவதரய தவகளகத கவயபளபடததளதனவரளகளள எனளற வதவதயவத எனளறவலள சவததவனள”. Similarly   Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) has said that, “எததவதகளக எநளத எநளத இடததள   தலள

எததளரன கவயஙளகளள ஏறளபடளடத எனளற எனகளக பநரடயவக வதவதயவத எனளறவலள சவததவனள. எநதள சழளநதரலயதலள யவரவலள ஏறளபடதளதபளபடளடத எனளற எனகளக பநரடயவக     வதவதயவத எனளறவலள சவததவனள  ” . The above answer given by  them does not lead to an inference that the accused was attacked by other. It would only go to prove that they are not aware how the accused sustained injuries. Hence, the said admissions made by P.Ws. 3 and 4 that they do not know how the accused sustained injured does not help to prove the defence of the accused that he was assaulted by others.

49. Further, Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) and Tr.Kesevan (P.W.7) have clearly deposed that when then went to the place of occurrence they found the accused with bleeding injuries and Tr.Kesavan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.7) took him to the hospital. They have not stated that they came to know that the accused was assaulted by some other persons. In fact, Ganesan (P.W.6) would state that park supervisor called and informed the two lovers stabbed themselves with knife. Further, he would state the he saw bleeding from the injuries caused by accused by stabbing himself. So, he also come to know that

….53.

the accused caused self-inflicted injuries. Nothing is elicited during crossexamination of  Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) that he came to know from his park security, public or other staff that a mob of persons attacked the accused and the victim. The contention on the side of the accused that the non-examination of park security and park supervisor cause doubt upon the prosecution case cannot be sustained. There is no material to show that they witnesses the actual occurrence. In fact the  park supervisor has not told to Tr.Ganesan (P.W.6) that some mob had come has attacked the lovers. He has  told that “லவளவவள…இரணளட பபவள கதளததயவலள கததளத வகவணளடவவளகளள”. So, it is not the version of park supervisor that some mob came and attacked the lovers. Hence, the contention regarding non-examination  of park supervisor cannot be  sustained.

50. Further, even in the evidence Tr.Kesevan (P.W.7) nothing is elicited to show a mob attack. It is only highlighted that Tr.Kesevan (P.W.7), S.S.I. who went to the scene of occurrence after getting information from police control room has made some preliminary enquiry about the occurrence and submitted a special report to the Inspector of Police. It is already decided supra that it will not amount to first information. Nothing is there to show that he gave special report regarding a mob attack. So, for a movement keeping aside the evidence of eye-witnesses, there is no other materials elicited during the crossexamination of the other witnesses to show that there was a mob attack made on

….54.

the accused and victim. As far as the eye-witnesses  they candidly admit that they have not seen how the accused sustained injuries. But, that itself does not lead to an inference it is a mob attack in the absence of any other materials to prove it. At best it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to the prove how the accused sustained injuries.

51. No doubt the accused had sustained injuries. It is contended on the side of the accused that prosecution has totally suppressed the medical records regarding the nature of injuries and the treatment given to the accused and failed to explain  how the accused sustained injuries in order to suppressed the real occurrence. There is no necessity for the investigating agency to suppress such occurrence if it had really occurred and put-up a false case against the accused. The contention  that the prosecution has suppressed the injuries  caused to the accused cannot be sustained. In fact the  prosecution has examined Dr. Agestiya Sarathy (P.W.9)  to prove what are the injuries sustained by the accused. Further the accused is also taken to the Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital hospital for giving further treatment and the wound certificate in Ex-C.1/P.W.10 is also produced on the side of the prosecution. Unfortunately the Investigating agency failed to  sight the doctor who treated the accused at Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital  (RGGH)  and examined him as a witness. This does not go to the root of the prosecution case

….55.

when there are other material to prove the occurrence. In fact the prosecution has produce medical records to show that the accused also sustained injuries in the occurrence and therefore there is no question of suppression of injuries sustained by the accused. The question would be how the accused sustained the injuries, which the prosecution is bound to prove. As per the version of the prosecution they are self inflicted the injuries.

52. If really the accused was assaulted by some other persons

nothing prevented  the accused in filing a counter complaint or counter case. In his statement of defence he has  mentioned that his father gave a complaint which was not considered by  the police. But, there is no material to show that the father of the accused or the  accused took any further steps against the police inaction against their complaint by adopting to the procedure under Section 156 Cr.P.C. or otherwise. If really he has been attacked by a mob in execution of honour killing  no prudent person would remain silent till he is prosecuted

falsely.

53. Further he has mentioned in his statement of defence that he was not examined by the police. But, it is elicited during cross-examination of P.W.6/Tr.Kannan that the police who came to the park examined the accused and recorded his statement. This would indicate that the accused was conscious when he was found injures at the park. So, his statement of defence that he

….56.

became unconscious is doubtful. Further Dr.Agastiyasarathy (P.W.9) has deposed that when the accused was brought to the hospital he gave a history of self inflicted injuries. No doubt he has not recorded where the accused was conscious. But, he has also not recorded the accused was unconscious. Most probable when a patient is brought unconscious the doctor would definitely record it as it will be  very significant.  When, the patient is conscious and able to give an  history, the recording of the history given by the patient will itself indicate that he was conscious. Furthermore, the accused is a stranger to the Tr.Kesavan(P.W.7) S.S.I., who took  the accused to the hospital. He has seen the accused for the first time at the park with injuries and took him to the hospital. He  does not know the name of the accused when he took the accused the hospital. It is not the case of the accused that Tr.Kesavan(P.W.7) knows the name of the accused when taken to the hospital. If the accused has been unconscious there is not way P.W.7 could have given the name to the doctor (P.W.9). Only because the accused was conscious he had given his name when he was taken to the hospital. Otherwise, his name should have been recorded as name unknown. In fact, Tr.Kesavan (P.W.7) has clearly deposed that he asked the accused and he gave his name as Rajesh and the injured girl was  his lover. Hence, the  contention on the side of the accused that he was unconscious when taken to the hospital cannot be believed. Hence the contention that accused was

….57.

attacked by some unknown mob hired by the family of the victim cannot be believed.

54. Further, this case on hand is not a case and counter case for any attack taking place between two groups. Only in cases of attack and counter attack the non explanation of the injuries on the accused would gain significance. This is a case where the accused inflicted injuries to his lover and then caused injuries to himself.  If really some other person had caused injuries to the accused he would have very well mentioned that same to the doctors who treated him at Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital or after discharge from the hospital he could have preferred a complaint  against those persons who really attacked  Nothing prevented the accused from summoning the medical records from the hospital if there was any thing in his favour in the medical records. Further, there is no material anywhere to show that the accused has  disclosed to any one that he was assaulted by some other persons or those persons hired by the victim family. The conduct of the accused keeping silent without lodging a counter complaint or counter case for the injuries suffered by him would fortify the version of the prosecution that the accused inflicted injuries to himself in the alleged occurrence. Only in such cases of any counter attack where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries suffered by the accused it may be considered fatal to the prosecution.  But in the case  on hand from the

….58.

inception it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the accused after inflicted injuries to the victim (P.W.1) he inflicted injuries to himself.  This version  finds place in the F.I.R. and the medical records produced on the side of the prosecution. There is no material to show that the prosecution suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused. However, whether the prosecution has prove that manner in which he sustained injuries is a different aspect, which will be dealt in the latter part of this judgment.

55. The learned Counsel for accused relied on decision reported in (2009) 11 SCC 106 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh), contending that the injuries on the accused are not explained. It is a case where there is contradiction with the medical evidence and ocular evidence and also the injuries sustained by the accused are denied by the eye-witnesses, so it was held doubtful. Hence, this case law may not apply to the case on hand.
56. In 1997 (1) MWN (Crl) Page No.120 (Knnan @ Renganaathan

Vs.State of  Pondicherry relevant portion in Para 13), it is case were there was clash between two groups, the prosecution witnesses and the accused, where one of the accused sustained serious  head injuries which was not explained by the prosecution. Whereas, in the case on hand there is no evidence that the accused was attacked by out siders. Further, it is case of love affair where  the accused  attacked the lover and then inflicted injuries to him. Though the eye-

….59.

witnesses have not seen the accused causing injuries to himself, thqat itself is not a ground to reject the prosecution case. In Onkarnath Singh Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1550), it is held that the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard simply because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused.  However, such non -explanation is  a factor, which is to be taken into account in  judging the veracity of the prosecution witness and the Court must scrutinise their evidence with case and each case presents it  own features. Thus, in the facts and  features of this case on  hand, the above decision may not apply to this case.

57. IN 2000(2) MWN Criminal Page 113 (Jabakani  State by Valliyoor P.S.-relevant para in 17 & 18), is a case where a complaint given by the injured accused was recorded before the complaint was given and accused sent to hospital with police memo. In which case the prosecution failed to produce wound certificate and doctor was not examined. But, in the case on hand the accused was taken to the hospital with the history of inflicting injuries to himself and  the doctor who admitted the accused in the hospital is examined to prove the  injuries. Only the subsequent doctor who gave treatment  at RGGH is not examined. It does not discredit the prosecution case as there is not suppression of material facts or the injuries sustained by the accused.

….60.

58. 2006 (2) MWN Criminal Page 72 (Ramalingam and Others vs.

State by S.I. of Police, Madathukulam P.S.-relevant par in 8 & 10), this is a case of case and counter, the accused  also gave a complaint one hour after the occurrence and case registered against the witnesses P.Ws. 1 and other, and there was no evidence as to what happened to the complaint  given by the accused, so it is  held that non-explanation  of injuries sustained by accused is fatal. This decision may not apply to the case on hand  as this  is not a case and counter.

59. In 2018 (7) SCC Page 536 (Kumar Vs. State-relevant para in 29 to 32), is a case where there was  fight between the accused and deceased and the accused also sustained injuries, the prosecution not produced medical records and not examined doctor to prove the nature of injuries sustained by the accused. This case law also differs in material facts and may not apply mutandis mutatis to the case on
60. In 2021 SCC Online SC 1099 (Arivind Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan-relevant portion in para 48 to 50 ) , is a case where due to land pathway dispute there was an attack, the prosecution witnesses have lied that they did not see any injuries on the accused, so it was held the non-explanation will affect the prosecution case. Whereas, in the case on hand the eye-witnesses have not denied the injuries suffered by the  accused, but, they have  stated that

….61.

they did not see how the accuse sustained injuries. Hence, this case also differs on  material facts and may not apply to the facts of the case on hand.

61. In the case on hand there in no evidence of mob attack. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the defence of attack by mob of persons engaged by the family of victim cannot be believed. The prosecution having putforth a version that accused self inflicted injuries to himself. The prosecution eye-witnesses have not denied the injuries sustained by the accused. They would only say that they didn’t see how the accused sustained in the injuries. The reliably of such witnesses has to be examined.
62. Unfortunately, the eye-witnesses have not seen the accused inflicting injuries to himself. Both Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4), friend of the injured victim would  clearly admit that didn’t see how the accused sustained injuries. But Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) had deposed in his chief examination that when he came out of the bathroom he saw  a quarrel between the accused and the victim and the accused inflicted injuries to the victim as well as inflicted injuries on his own back side. It is contended on the side of the accused that the Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) came only after hearing the screaming and admits that he saw only after hearing the scream, therefore his evidence cannot be relied upon. But, on carefully scrutinizing the evidence of Tr.Logesh (P.W.3), he has stated “பவதளரமள உளளபள   இரநதளபபவத சததள மள பகடளட நவனள வவளதபய வநளத

….62.

பவவளததளதவக பபவலநசவவள வதசவரரணயதலள வசவலலளவதலளரல எனளறவலள வசவனபள னனள. எனனள சதளதமள பகடளடத எனளறவலள அநளத வபணள அமளமவ அபளபவ எனளற கததள        தனவவள. சமளபவமள மடநதளபதறக சததளமள பகடளட பதறகதவனள நவனள பவவளதபள தனள எனளறவலள

சவததவனள”  So, it is not his evidence he didn’t see the occurrence at all, but he saw the occurrence only after hearing scream. What is contradicted is the statement that he went to the bathroom and that he saw the occurrence while he returned from the bathroom. There is no contradiction regarding he witnessing the occurrence. May be he might have omitted to state in the police station that he saw the occurrence when came out of the bathroom. This contradiction is not material to discredit his evidence.

63. In fact P.W.10 (Investigating officer) has would state that “அ.சவ.3 ததர.பலவபகஷள பவதளரமள உளளபள இரநதளபபவத சதளதமள பகடளட நவனள வவளதபய வநளத பவவளதளபதனள எனளற எனள வதசவரரணயதலள வசவலலள      வதலளரல எனளறவலள சவததவனள. ……………பமலமள நதபவதவவரடய வலதரக  , இடத மவவளப , இடத பகளக வயதற ஆகதய இடஙளகளதலள கதளதபளபடளடதவக எனள வதசவரரணயயதலள வசவலலள      வதலளரல எனளறவலள சவததவனள . மவறத மவறத கததள  தயதவக வசவலலள யளளளவவள.”   Therefore, the proved contradiction is that Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) has not stated in his police statement that he heard a scream when he  was in the bath room and then came out. So, this is not a  material omission or contradiction to discredit his evidence

….63.

when his (P.W.3) testimony regarding witnessing the occurrence is not

discredited.

64. It has to be considered that all occurrence witnesses will not perceive the occurrence in the same manner. One may see something and other may omit to see certain things. So, one cannot except all the eye witnesses to give a stereo type version regarding the occurrence. In occurrence of this nature which takes place suddenly and unexpectedly the witnesses are prone to show some minor contradictions and inconsistencies, which are inevitable. The  minor inconsistencies found in  the version given by the eye-witnesses will not affect the credibility of the  eye-witnesses if they are cogent and consistent in material particulars.
65. The injured victim, Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) has clearly deposed that after receiving the gift articles when she started to return back, suddenly the accused pulled a knife from his bag and  stabbed her in several places. She has also stated that she shouted and screamed and her friend Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) came there and took her to the hospital. The evidence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) is very clinching and corroborates the occurrence in a clear and cogent manner. Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) has deposed that after hearing the screaming of the victim she went to the scene of occurrence and saw the accused holding the

….64.

victim by his left hand and further the accused was holding a knife on his right hand. She has deposed  as below:

“வகவஞளச பநரதளததலள   நதபவதவ அலறலள சதளதமள பகடளடத. நவனள உடபன எனனளதடமள இரநளத ரபகரள எலளலவமள எடததள                              வகவணளட ஓடபனனள . நவனள பபவயள பவவளததளபபவத ஒபர கடளடமவக இரநளதத.    அஙளபக பபவயள பவவளதளதபபவத நதபவதவவரடய வலத ரகரய ரவபஜஷள அவனரடய இடத ரகயதலள பதடததள

வகவணளடரநளதவனள. ரவபஜஷள உரடய வலத ரகயதலள கததள    த ரவதளததரநதள வனள. நவனள பவவளகளகமளபபவத நதபவதவவரடய மவவளப பகதத மறளறமள ரககளதலள எலலள      வமள ரதளதகளகரற இரநதளத. யவரபம அவவளகளள இரவவள பகளகதளததலமள பபவகவதலளரல. எனகளகமள பதறளறமவக இரநதள த. நதபவதவ மயகளகமறமள நதரலயதலள இரநளதவளள   . ஆனவலள நவனள பபசதயத அவளகளக பகடளடத. நவனள மடளடமள வமதவவக அவளதடமள பபவயள ரவபஜஷதடமள கதளததரய கநபழ பபவட ரவபஜஷள எனளற வசவனளபனனள. நவனள பபவகமளபபவபத எனள பதனளனவட இரணளட     ரபயனளகளள வநளதவவளகளள . நவனள நதபவதவரவ பதடகளக பபவபனனள.  எனபள னவட பசவளநளத அஙளகதரநளத இரணளட ரபயனளகளமள நதபவதவரவ தகளகதவகவணளட பகளகதளததலள உளளள வசசநளதரபவணளடயனள மரததளவமரனகளக அரழதளத வசனளபறவமள. ரவபஜரஷ சறளறத கமளபலள இரநளதத.

நவனள நதபவதவபவவட ஆஸளபதளததவதகளக பபவயளவதடளபடனள                                                                                    .”

66. The above testimony of P.W.4 is very clinching to show that when she went to the scene of  occurrence she saw the accused   holding a knife with his hand and P.W.1 was having bleeding injuries. This circumstances is

….65.

very clinching to prove that the injuries suffered by P.W.1, in the light of the evidence given by her, was caused only by the accused and not by any one else. The presence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) cannot be doubted because she has taken the victim and admitted her in the hospital.

67. It is contended on the side of the accused that the evidence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) regarding seeing the accused with knife and asking to drop the knife is an improved version and contradictory to her earlier statement.

On carefully scrutinizing the evidence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) and  the

Investigating Officer (P.W.10) there is no contradiction regarding the fact that Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) witnessed the accused holding the victim in one hand and holding a knife in his right hand. The only portion contradicted in that she asked the accused to drop the knife.   When contradicting Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) it is put to her “பபவலநசவவள வதசவவததளதபபவத  நவனள மடளடமள பபவயள ரவபஜஷதடமள கதளததரய கபந ழ பபவட ரவபஜஷள எனளற வசவனபள னனள எனளற வசவலளலதயளபள ளனவ

எனளறவலள வசவலலள தயளளபளனள.”  This  is proved to be improvement which is omitted to be mentioned in the police statement during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (P.W.10). But she is not confronted with the fact that  she witnessed the accused was holding a knife in his hand. Therefore, there is no material contradiction regarding the fact that soon after the occurrence when Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) came to the scene of occurrence the accused was found

….66.

holding  the victim in one hand and a knife in another hand hand and the victim was found with bleeding injuries while the accused was still holding the knife. Thus, the evidence of Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) is clinching to establish the complicity of the accused in causing injuries to the victim (P.W.1).

68. One other eye-witness Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) would also identified the accused and the injured witness Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and deposed as below:

“20.02.2020 அனளற நவனமள எனள நணளபவளகளடனள அணளணவ நகவதலள உளளள      டவவள  பவவளகளகதலள வநளததரநபள தவமள. அபளபபவத நவஙளகளள பவதளரமள பபவகலவமள எனளற பபவபனவமள. பவதளரமள பகளகதளததலள எததவதயமள கவயமளபடளட நதபவதவ எனளற வபணளணமள      கவதலவளகளளபபவல அமவளநதள  பபசதகளவகவணளடரநளதவவளகளள. நவனள பவதளரமள பபவயதடளட  வநளதபபவத இரவரகளகளள சணளரட ஏறளபடளட அததலள எததவத ரகயதலள ரவதளததரநதள       கதளததயவலள நதபவதவவரடய வலத ரக, இடத மவவளப, இடத பகளக வயதற

ஆகதயவறளறதலள மவறத மவறத கததள   தவதடளடவவள. எனளபனவட இரநளத நணளபவளகளள அவலகளஸள   , சகதளதபவலள, மணத ஆகதபயவவள ஆபததளவன நதரலயதலள இரநதள நதபவதவரவ தகளகதகளவகவணளட ஆடளபடவ பதடததள அரகதலள இரநதள சவநதளரபவணளடயனள மரததளவமரனகளக அரழதளதவசனளபறவமள “.

69. The above evidence of Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) that he helped to take the injured Selvi.Nivatha (P.W.4) to the hospital is corroborated from the

….67.

evidence of  Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) who has  stated that the boys standing their help her to take the injured to the hospital. So the presence of Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) cannot be  doubted. As already discussed supra the evidence of Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) witnessing the occurrence is not discredited. It is further tried to contradict that he has not mentioned the parts of the body were the stab wound was inflicted to the victim in  his police statement, but the Investigating office (P.W.10) has deposed  that Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) has given a police statement that the accused repeatedly stabbed the  victim, but not mentioned the parts of the body. So, this cannot considered as a  material contradiction where there is medical corroboration and from  the injured eye-witnesses.

70. It is contended on the side of the accused that Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) is shown to be an independent witness, but he stated that he knew the name of the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and Roshini (P.W.4) and also there college. Based on this suggestion it is contended that Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) is already a known and interested witness to the victim. This contention cannot be sustained because there is no material to show that Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) knew the injured Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and the witness Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) prior to the occurrence. After  the occurrence it is quite natural he would have come to know about Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and the witness Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4). Since he accompanied them to the hospital and helped them in taking the victim it is

….68.

quite natural he could have enquired and come to know about the name and place of studying. During cross-examination there is no material to show that he knew the witnesses Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and  Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) prior to the occurrence. He would admit that “இநளதவழகளகதலள கவயமளபடளட    வபணளணதனள வபயவள எனகளக வதவதயமள எனளறவலள சவததவனள   . அவவள எனள கலளலவதயதலள படதளதவரவ எனளறவலள    இலளரல. அவவள எநதள கலளலவதயதலள படகளகதறவவவள எனளறவலள அணளணவ ஆதவளஸள கலளலவதயதலள……… நவனள அ.சவ.1 நதபவதவவதனள கடமளபதளததறளக வநரகளகமவனவவள எனளறவலள சவதலயலள. அ.சவ.4 பரவசதனத எனளபவரர எனகளக வதவதயமவ எனளறவலள

வதவதயமள. அ.சவ.4 வபரமளபவதலள இரகளகதறவவள எனளறவலள வதவதயவத   “. This evidence of . P.W.3 would go to show that he had come to know both P.W.1 and P.W.4 only after the occurrence and not prior to occurrence. There is no specific question put to Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) that he knew the victim prior to the occurrence. Moreover, nothing is elicited during the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 4 that they knew Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) prior to the occurrence.  Therefore this contention on the side of the accused that  Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) is not an independent witness cannot be sustained.

71. Therefore from the evidence of Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1), Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) and Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) it is clinching proved by the prosecution that it is the accused who inflicted injuries to the victim with a knife. The medical evidence of Dr.Ramasamy (P.W.8) and the medical documents in Ex-P.4,

….69.

Accident Register and Ex-P5, Wound Certificate would prove that the victim has suffered stab injuries in vital parts at her abdomen and left chest and also other injuries on her right forearm, right shoulder, left forearm and left shoulder and that the injuries are grievous in nature. By mistake it is mentioned as RTA in the wound certificate, which is explained that it is mistakenly written by Dr.Ramasamy (P.W.8).

72. The weapon used by the accused knife (P.M.O.1) is  seized from the place of occurrence  and also identified by the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. The recovery  of the knife  with the other material objects is prove from the evidence of Investigating  officer (P.W.10), which  is corroborated by the independent witness Tr,Vignesh(P.W.5). Dr.Ramasamy (P.W.8) has  opined that the injuries found of the victim (P.W.1) is possible with the  knife  (P.M.O.1). Therefore, the prosecution has produced reliable and credible evidence to prove that the accused has attempted to made a murderous attack on the victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) with a knife (P.M.O.1) and caused grievous injuries, thereby proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
73. As far as the injuries suffered by the accused there is no evidence except the evidence of Tr.Logesh (P.W.3). He has spoken about only one injury caused on the back of accused. He has not seen the accused causing other injuries to him. The other eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 4 have also not seen

….70.

how the accused sustained the injuries.   The injured Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1) and Selvi. Roshini (P.W.4) candidly admit that they have not seen how the accused sustained injuries. Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) said that “எததவதயதனள உடமபள தலள எதளதரன  கவயஙளகளள இரநளதத எனளற வசவலலள    மடயமவ எனளறவலள வசவலளலமடயவத  . எததவதயதனள உடலதலள எநளவதநளத இடதளததலள எநளத மவததவதயவன கவயஙளகளள இரநளதத எனளற எனனளவலள வசவலலள  மடயவத எனளறவலள சவததவனள  . நவனள வரவதறளக மனளப எததள   ரன பபவள எததவதரய தவகளகத கவயபளபடததள   தனவவளகளள எனளற வதவதயவத எனளறவலள சவததவனள    “. So it is also doubtful that he could have seen how the accused sustained all the injuries. In fact Tr.Logesh (P.W.3) had taken the injured witness Selvi.Nivetha along with Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) to the hospital. When the injured (P.W.1) was first taken to the hospital, the accused had not sustained injuries. Only after the victim was taken to the hospital he could has sustained the injuries. That is why, Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) and Selvi.Roshini (P.W.4) has stated that they do not know how the accused sustained the injuries. So, only after the victim is taken to the hospital accused should have sustained injuries. There  is no clearly and direct evidence to prove how the accused sustained injuries.  There is  no reliable direct evidence that the accused caused self inflicted injuries. Selvi.Roshini (P.W.3) has deposed that when the victim was taken to the hospital the accused was surrounded by local public in the park. So, enraged public who had witnessed the accused attacking the victim (P.W.1) could  have also inflicted some injuries to the  accused. Further, as rightly argued on the side

….71.

of the accused the prosecution has not produced clear medical evidence  to prove that the injuries are self inflicted or not. The evidence of P.W.9, Dr.Agestiya Sarathy and the would certificate in Ex-P.6/P.W.9 would indicate that the accused was found with laceration left elbow, near left side of umbilicus, left  forearm, abrasion at back below scapular region  0x5x4 cm. He would also admit that the injuries on the hand could be defensive injuries. Such injuries is also possible  when the accused fall down after self inflicting injuries

on his abdomen. Ex-C.1 would prove that the accused had undergone Laparotomy surgery for jejunal perforation  and the injuries is grievous in nature.  Therefore, it can only be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries suffered by the accused were self inflicted injuries caused by him beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there is no contra material to prove that the injuries was caused by some other persons. The only material is the statement made by the accused to the doctor (P.W.9) when he was taken to hospital. It is alone is  not sufficient to prove that the accused self inflicted injuries to himself. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has attempted to commit suicide by self inflicting injuries to himself, punishable under Section 309 IPC.  Moreover as submitted on the side of the accused the recent decision reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 21769 ( A.Maria Raja

Alohonse Vs. State) , it is held that in view of Section 115 of Mental Health Act

….72.

2017 the  offence under Section 309 is  decriminalize. Applying the above ratio it can be concluded that the charge against the accused under Section 309 IPC cannot be sustained.

74. The failure on the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 309 IPC does not discredit the other part of the occurrence in which he attempted to murder the victim (P.W.1) by inflicting grievous injuries. Hence, for the reasons discussed above this court is of the considered view that  the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has inflicted grievous injuries to the victim Selvi.Nivetha (P.W.1) with the intention to commit murder. The motive is also clearly proved by the prosecution. Fortunately the victim survived the murderous attack. Hence it is concluded that the offence under Section 307 IPC is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

CHARGE UNDER SECTION 294(b) IPC:

75. In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) IPC it is necessary that the prosecution must prove that the accused has uttered obscene words in public place  causing annoyance. There is no evidence to prove this fact. Selvi. Nivetha (P.W.1)  and the other occurrence witnesses have not deposed that the accused uttered  any obscene words that would attract the

….73.

charge under Section 294(b) IPC. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the  prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 294(b) IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION AND FINDING:

76. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances and the evidence on record this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. But, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 294(b) and 309 IPC. Hence the point for determination is answered accordingly.
77. Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and found not guilty for the charges under Sections 294(b) and 309  P.C. The accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charges under Sections 294(b) and 309  I.P.C.
78. 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 25.04.2023. Since the accused is found guilty,  his bail stands  cancelled and  the accused  is  taken  custody  and  remanded  to  judicial custody till  04.2023 under Section 309 Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to  be

….74.

produced on 25.04.2023 for hearing on the question of sentence.  Call on

25.04.2023.

//Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the  21^st day of

April, 2023//             

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                    Chennai.

….75.

S.C. No. 193/2018 DATED:25.04.2023

Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 25.04.2023 at  4.30   P.M.

79. Accused The accused is found guilty and convicted under Sections 307 I.P.C. viz. judgment dated 21.04.2023. Accused is produced today and examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;

நவனள மதலள படளடதவரத, வயதவன அபளபவ அமளமவ உளளளவவளகளள. நவனளதவனள அவவளகரள கவபளபவறளற பவணளடமள. எனகளக கவயமளபடளட மரதளதவமரனயதலள இரநளபதனள. கரறநளத தணளடரன வழஙளகபவணளடமள .

 

80. Recorded the plea of the accused. Heard both sides on the

question of sentence. Passover for orders on sentence. Call at  5.30  P.M. today

25.04.2023.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this  25^th   day of  April, 2023.

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

….76.

ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 193/2018 – DATED: 25.04.2023 AT 5.30 P.M.

81. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Ingenious but discredited, Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon wrote in his essays, as far back as, in the 16th Century “You cannot love and be wise.” There are other adages “Love is Blind” and “All is fair in love and war” etc. But, that itself cannot exceed it limits. Such a craze and mad love for the victim has ultimately put the accused in to real trouble. No doubt the act of the accused is such that it has challenged the very social thinking and endeavor for women empowerment and success. But, the circumstances that made him to do such stupid act explains the mitigating circumstances. The accused was in deep love with the victim (P.W.1) from his school days for more that 6 years. Even 10 days before the occurrence they have meet and spent time together. The love letters would indicate the victim has express how deepest love and the she will be  with him for ever, what may come. But, all of a sudden the victim (P.W.1) declares break-up and put the accused to utter shock and turmoil which has made  him to loss in mind and take a stupid decision to attack the victim. The accused  may even justify his anger and hatred being deceived by the victim. The sudden break-up pronounced by the victim has driven the accused out of  mind to do this horrifying attack on the victim. So, there is some kind of sustained provocation out of which the accused had committed the crime. The accused was aged 22

….77.

years at the time of occurrence. Unable to bear the deception committed by the victim after loving him from his school days and expressing all that deep love and affection for him, he must have felt betrayed. However, it cannot be a reason  or ground to justify the act of the accused. But, it may be taken in to considering to ascertain the reason or the circumstances that pushed the accused to do such crime. Before sentencing the accused the ends of justice would require to consider the facts and circumstances that made the accused commit a crime.

82. In the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684. following circumstances have been recognized as mitigating circumstances: “Dr. Chitaley has suggested these mitigating factors : “Mitigating circumstances :- In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the Court shall take into account the following circumstances :- (1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death. (3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society. (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above. (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. (6)

….78.

That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. (7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.”

83. Thus applying the above dictum, it can be inferred from the fact and circumstances that the accused was aged 22 years at the time of occurrence and the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Hence, the sentence imposed must be  proportionate to the crime committed and the circumstances in which it is committed. Thus appreciating the mitigating circumstance this Court is of the considered view that taking a lenient view will meet the ends of justice. But, the accused cannot go unpunished. This is a fit case for exercising the discretion of the Court for imposing proportional sentence. As the accused caused injuries to the victim it will fall under the second leg of Section 307 IPC, which prescribes a punishment the the offence of shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned, which is up to 10 years under the first leg. This Court is of the view that  justice will be done if the accused is sentenced for a period of five years considering the circumstances in which the accused committed the crime, his age and antecedents, his tendency and the probability of his reformation.  Hence, this Court sentence the accused as below;

….79.

• to under go FIVE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months;

• the period already undergone by the accused from 21.04.2023to 25.04.2023 shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

84. Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.: The case properties in

P.M.Os. 3 and 4 are ordered to be kept with the records. P.M.O.1, 2, 5 to 12 does not have any value at all. Hence, P.M.Os. 1, 2, 5 to 12 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.

85. Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: – Perused the oral and documentary evidence. The victim P.W.1 was young girl has suffered serious injuries as the result of the crime. Her stepping stone to success and her career is jeopardizes by the vengeful act of the accused. The occurrence has definitely caused a permanent scar and injured, not only physically, also in her mind and soul. It had been a tragedy in her life which cannot be easily erased out of her thoughts. Several sleepless nights would have been suffered by her due to his tragic incidents. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be just and proper and a fit case to compensate the victim  (P.W.1) towards the loss and injury suffered by her due to the offence committed against her and for her rehabilitation.

….80.

Hence, this Court is inclined to pay compensation out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., to the victim (P.W.1). Therefore, out of the total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-,  the Court is inclined to award Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the victim P.W.1/Selvi.Nivetha.

86. The compensation awarded out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., will be only a pittance and will not be adequate to restitute the victim of the crime. Hence, this Court finds it fit to recommend 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 the victim P.W.1/Selvi.Nivetha.
87. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.20,000/- paid by the accused,

Rs.15,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to the victim (P.W.1). The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.

88. 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 the Victim P.W.1/Selvi.Nivetha.  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.

….81.

89. 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 25^th day of April, 2023//

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                                   Chennai.

Annexure:

List of Witnesses examined:

On the side of the prosecution:-

P.W.1	::	Selvi. Nivetha  (Injured)
P.W.2	::	Tmt. Kanjana (Mother of the injured)
P.W.3	::	Tr. Lokesh
P.W.4	::	Selvi. Rosilini
P.W.5	::	Tr. Vignesh
P.W.6	::	Tr. Ganesan (Park Supervisor)
P.W.7	::	Tr. Kesavan (Special Sub-Inspector of Police)

….82.

P.W.8	::	Dr. Ramasamy (A.R. Doctor) (Victim-X)
P.W.9	::	Dr. Agestiya Sarathy (A.R. Doctor) (Accused)
P.W.10	::	Tr. Saravanan (Investigating Officer)

On the side of the accused :  Nil

List of Exhibits Marked:

 

On the side of the prosecution :

Exhibit No.	Date	Particulars
Ex-P.1/P.W.1	20.02.2018	Complaint statement given by the victim­X
Ex-P.2/P.W.5	20.02.2018	Observation Mahazar
Ex-P.3/P.W.5	20.02.2018	Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.4/P.W.8	20.02.2018	Accident Register (Victim­X)
Ex-P.5/P.W.8	05.04.2018	Wound Certificate
Ex-P.6/P.W.9	20.02.2018	Accident Register (Accused)
Ex-P.7/P.W.10	20.02.2018	First Information Report (F.I.R.) (C 7920333)
Ex-P.8/P.W.10	20.02.2018	Rough­sketch
Ex-P.9/P.W.10	…	Photograph
Ex-P.10/P.W.10	20.02.2018	Form­95
Ex-P.11/P.W.10	…	Alteration Report
Ex-P.12/P.W.10	17.01.2016	Letter given by the victim­X to the accused

….83.

Ex-P.13/P.W.10	19.09.2016	Letter given by the victim­X to the accused
Ex-P.14/P.W.10	…	Letter given by the victim­X to the accused
Ex-P.15/P.W.10	…	Letter given by the victim­X to the accused

On the side of accused:    Nil

 

On the side of the Court:

Exhibit No.	Date	Particulars
Ex-C.1	20.02.2018	Opinion Form (Accused)

List of Material Objects Marked: 

On the side of  the Prosecution:

Exhibit No.	Particulars
P.M.O.1	Blood stained knife with blue colour handle ­ 1
P.M.O.2	Blood stained Watch ­ 1
P.M.O.3	Child Photographs  (3 Nos.)
P.M.O.4	Letter written by victim­X to the accused (4 Nos.)
P.M.O.5	Black colour mobile phone with Sim-card  ­ 1
P.M.O.6	Black colour bag ­ 1
P.M.O.7	Pink colour blanket ­ 1
P.M.O.8	Towel ­ 1
P.M.O.9	Valluvar Vazhiyil Abdul Kalam named Book ­ 1

….84.

P.M.O.10	Black colour headset ­ 1
P.M.O.11	Black colour Power bank ­ 1
P.M.O.12	Black colour leather strap watch ­ 1

On the side of the Accused:   Nil

 

 

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                       Chennai.                     // E-COURT  WEB  COPY //

 

Sessions  Judge,                                Mahalir Neethimandram,                                             Chennai.

….85.