Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
8. The learned Sessions Judge relying on or on the basis of the material brought on record accepted the deposition of D PW-1, Kolandaisamy. All the accused were held guilty of the charges leveled against them. On an appeal preferred by the accused before the High Court, it while upholding the conviction ,_ and sentence of the appellant herein, it recorded a judgment of acquittal so far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. It was E opined that accused No.2 being father in law of he appellant, might not have any motive to cause the murder of the deceased. Besides, no incised injury has been found on the deceased. As regards accused No.3, it was held that there was no cogent material to connect him with the crime.
9. Mr. T. Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia would submit :- 1) That the High Court committed a serious error in drawing presumption on the basis of the appellant's conduct, to hold that he had the requisite intention to kill the deceased. Such a presumption, learned counsel would contend, is not available in law. 2) The cycle and torch used by PW-1 having not been seized, which were material for the purpose of corroborating his statement, the impugned judgment BENJAMIN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 3) POLICE [S.8. SINHA, J.] is liable to be set aside. If the articles which PW-1 had bought, could be seized, there was absolutely no reason as to why the cycle and the torch used by PW-1 could not have also been seized.
10. Mr. V. Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.
11. PW-1 and PW-4 have proved enmity between the parties. Veracity of statements of the said witnesses to that effect C was not tested in the cross-examination. The fact that an incident had occurred a few days prior to the incident in question is also not in dispute.
12. The First Information Report was received by the 0 Investigating officer, PW-10, at 1.00 a.m. on 27th November, 1994. He immediately came to the site. The distance between the place of occurrence and Nilakkottai Police Station is about 3 kms. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence at about 2.00 a.m. Thus, the investigation commenced immediately after the lodging of the First Information Report. It E is not a case where an undue delay in lodging the First Information Report took place.
13. Homicidal death of Maria Michel stands undisputed. It is also evident from the postcmortem examination report that F the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by a log of wood which was marked as M.0.1. The deceased suffered atleast three fractures on his head.
14. PW-1, although may be a son of the deceased, but it is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had witnessed the G occurrence.
15. We have been taken through the entirety of his deposition and do not find any reason to differ with the views of the l~arned Sessions Judge as also the High Court. The cycle H [2008) 1 S.C.R. A and the torch used by PW-1 had no connection with the commission of the offence. If they had not been seized by the police, for one reason or the other, the same by itself would not be a ground to disbelieve the statement of PW-1.
16. The following finding of the High Court had been commented upon by Mr. Raja. "From the conduct of the first accused, it can be presumed that the first accused had the intention to kill the deceased and therefore the prosecution has proved its case in so c far as the first accused is concerned."
17. The High Court while mentioning about the conduct of the appellant, meant overt acts attributed on the part of the appellant. The High Court merely opined that in view of the number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased, he had an D intention to kill him. Intention to kill a person must be determined having regard to the factual scenario involved in each case. The doctor PW-3, K. Subramaniam, has clearly stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by the log of wood, which was marked as M.0.1. Medical evidence, E thus, corroborated the ocular evidence.
18. Keeping in view the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased as also the nature thereof and furthermore in view of the opinion expressed by the doctor, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant had the intention to kill the F deceased.
19. For the reasons abovementioned we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed. ,4 — i '• "