ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Vs. CHANDRASEKAR ALIAS SEKAR
LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-63
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 22,2003

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDRASEKAR @ SEKAR Respondents




JUDGEMENT

N.DHINAKAR, J. - (1.)As the Reference and the appeal arise out of a common sessions case, we dispose them of by the following common judgment.
(2.)The appellant, challenging his conviction and sentence of death imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, for an offence of murder, has preferred the above appeal and the learned Sessions Judge has made the reference for the confirmation of death sentence imposed upon him. The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as 'the accused', was tried on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 2.00 a.m. on 3.9.2001, he caused the death of his son, Shanmugasundaram @ Shanmugam, by cutting his neck and severing it and that during the course of the same transaction, he attempted to murder P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge, as stated earlier, finding the accused guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to death, imposed a sentence of seven years R.I. under Section 307 I.P.C. framed under Charge No.2 for attempting to murder P.Ws.1 and 2.
(3.)The case of the prosecution is as follows:- P.W.1 is the wife of the accused and she is also the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of the accused. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sons of the accused and P.W.5 is the daughter of the accused. P.W.6 was a tenant in the house, where the accused, the deceased and their family members were living. During the relevant period, they were at Vyasarpadi and prior to that, P.W.1 along with her husband, who is the accused, was living at Pune, where the accused was working as a goldsmith. He suffered loss in the business and therefore, migrated to Kasi, where also he did not have better times. He returned to Chennai along with his wife about five months prior to the date of incident and after his return, he and his wife, P.W.1, were staying in the house of P.W.2. Later, they shifted to the house, where the occurrence had taken place. The deceased, during the relevant period, was working in the passport office. Three days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased as the accused was blamed by the deceased for not taking care of the family and was living a life of a vagabond. The accused abused his son and P.W.1 intervened and pacified them. At about 11.00 a.m. on 2.9.2001, the accused found fault with the family for not serving him proper food and the deceased took his father to task by telling him that he has already asked him to go out of the house and P.W.1 had to intervene to pacify her husband and son. This is said to be the immediate provocation for the accused to attack his son, the deceased in the case. On the night of 2.9.2001, all the family members took their bed and at about 2.00 a.m., P.W.1 woke up, on hearing the cries of her son. P.W.1, on waking up, found her son lying face downwards and saw the accused cutting him with M.O.1, hacksaw blade, on the neck. On hearing the alarm of P.W.1, P.W.2 woke up and when P.Ws.1 and 2 intervened, they were also cut by the accused. The accused was having a knife on one hand and the head of his son on the other hand. P.W.1 cried aloud and the accused, proclaiming that he has despatched his son to the other world, left the house, after throwing the head in the kitchen and while leaving, he took the hacksaw blade along with him. P.W.1 became unconscious on seeing this ghastly act. P.W.3 took P.Ws.1 and 2 to Government Stanley Hospital, where they were examined by the Casualty Medical Officer, P.W.13. P.W.13, on examining P.W.2, found the following injuries:-
1. Laceration right ring finger 5 cm. x 1 x 1/2 cm. 2. Lacerated right forearm 10 cm. x 1/4 x 1/4 cm. 3. Laceration left hand (2) in Nos. each 4 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. 4. Laceration right back 4 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm. 5. Laceration right arm 6 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.
Ex.P.14 is the copy of the accident register issued by the doctor in respect of the injuries found on her person. He also examined P.W.1 and on her person, found the two following injuries, for which, he issued Ex.P.15, the copy of the accident register and Ex.P.16, the wound certificate:- 1. Lacerated left fore-arm 15 x 2 x 3 cm. 2. Lacerated right forearm 7 x 2 x 1 cm. An intimation was sent to the police station and on receipt of the said intimation, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to Government Stanley Hospital, where, finding P.W.1, questioned her. She gave a statement. The said statement is Ex.P.1. P.W.18 returned to the police station with the statement, Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.552 of 2001 against the accused under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. by preparing express reports. Ex.P.21 is a copy of the printed first information report. He took up investigation in the crime.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.