Subramani v. State rep. byInspector of PoliceRasipuram Police Station.Namakkal District

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Accused namely Subramani was directed to bereleased on bail as per the Order of this Court dated 20.11.2000 andmade in Crl MP No.7683/2000 in Crl.A.961/2000.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 29.08.2005CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.DHINAKARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMCRL. APPEAL NO. 961 OF 2000 Subramani.. Appellant- Vs -State rep. by Inspector of PoliceRasipuram Police Station. Namakkal District... Respondent Appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed bythe learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Salem, made in S.C. No. 128 of1999 dated 26.9.2000 as stated therein. For Appellant: Mr. D.ShivakumaranFor Respondent: Mr. S.Jayakumar, APPJUDGMENT(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)The sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty asper the charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Courtof Sessions (II Addl. Sessions Judge), Salem, has broughtforth thisappeal.

The deceased, Malarvizhi, is the wife of the appellant.P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.1 along with his parentswas living at Madha Koil Street, Rasipuram. The deceased was givenin marriage to the appellant seven years back. The appellant wasdoing paddy business all along and for the said purpose he wasdemanding money often and used to drive the deceased out of thehouse and she, in turn, used to go to her parents house and demandmoney. Six months prior to the occurrence the appellant made a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demand and drove the deceased to her parental home. Her fatherpacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial house. Ten daysprior to the date of occurrence also the deceased came to herparental house with the same demand.

On 17.11.96 the marriage of one of the brother of thedeceased by name Saravanan took place. The married spouses went to Vepadai. On 18.11.96, in order to bring them home, the parents ofthe deceased and all the relatives went over to Vepadai. On thatday P.W.1 was present in the house apart from the deceased and theappellant. At about 2.30 p.m., both the deceased and the appellantwere in the upstairs. P.W.1 was also present there. The deceasedand the appellant were shouting at each other and, therefore, P.W.1came down. He found P.W.s 2 and 3 in the ground floor and, therefore, he started chatting with them. Within a short while, heheard the distressing cries of the deceased. P.W.s 1 to 3 wentupstairs and they found the door locked on the inside. They knockedthe door, but it was not opened and when the broke open the door andgot inside, they found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Atthat time, the appellant left the place of occurrence. They tookthe deceased, Malarvizhi to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, where she was declared dead by the doctor, P.W.11. Immediately,P.W.1 proceeded to Rasipuram police station, where P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty. He gave a report, Ex.P-1 on thestrength of which a case came to be registered in crime No.1643/96.The express first information report, Ex.P-11, was despatched tocourt and P.W.13, the Inspector of Police was informed about theregistration of a crime.

P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of theprinted first information report, took up investigation. Heproceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in thepresence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-12. He also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-14. The scene of occurrenceas well as the dead body was caused to be photographed by thephotographer, P.W.8. M.O.6 series are the photographs. Theinvestigating officer, thereafter, conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatadarsand prepared inquest report, Ex.P-15. After the inquest, the bodywas handed over to a police constable with a requisition to thedoctor for conducting autopsy.

On receipt of the requisition, P.W.9, the Assistant Surgeonattached to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, conducted autopsy onthe dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries :-"1) A lacerated injury 10 x 5 cm in front and lowerpart of the neck running obliquely on the right sidecutting the whole of trachea, oesophagus, majorblood vessels and muscles.2) An elliptical wound 2 x 1 x skin deep on the lefttemporal region.3) An elliptical injury 2 x 1 x skin deep on thelower part of the left side of the chest 5 cm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lateral to the midline.4) An elliptical injury 2 x ½ x muscle deep on theleft side of the abdomen 7 cm above the umblicus.5) A linear abrasion 3 cm length just above theright cubital fossa.6) An elliptical injury 2 x 1 cm x skin deep runningdownwards about 5 cm depth. On the lateral side ofthe left side of the chest 15 cm below the axilla. "The doctor issued Ex.P-8, the post-mortem certificate, opining thatthe deceased would appear to have died on account of shock andhaemorrhage due to injuries to blood vessels and vital organs.

Pending investigation the accused was arrested on 19.11.96.He volunterred to give a confessional statement and the same wasrecorded in the presence of two witnesses, the admissible portion ofwhich is marked as Ex.P-4. Consequent upon the same, he producedM.O.1, knife, M.O.6, shirt and M.O.7, bloodstained dothi. All thematerial objects were recovered under a mahazar. The accused wasremanded to judicial custody. All the material objects which wererecovered from the scene of occurrence, and those produced by theaccused pursuant to the confessional statement were all subjected tochemical analysis, which resulted in the chemical analysis report, Ex.P-18 and serology report, Ex.P-19. On completion of theinvestigation, final report was filed against the appellant by theinvestigating officer. The case was committed to the court ofsessions, necessary charges were framed by the sessions court andthe case was taken up for trial.

In order to substantiate the charge levelled against theaccused, the prosecution marched fourteen witnesses and relied onnineteen exhibits and seven material objects. On completion of theevidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questionedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstancesfound in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied themas false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court heardthe arguments advanced by either side and after a thorough scrutinyof the materials available before it, found the accused guilty asper the charge. Hence, this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, made thefollowing submissions. The prosecution relied on the evidence ofP.W.s 1 to 3 as direct evidence. They are closely related and, hence, they are interested in the deceased and their evidence, ifcarefully scrutinised, does not inspire the confidence of the courtand their testimony should have been rejected. Insofar as the sceneof occurrence was concerned, according to the prosecution theoccurrence has taken place in the upstairs. The evidence of P.W.1shows that he got down and, he was in the company of P.Ws. 2 and 3at the time of occurrence and thus nobody was present at the placeat the time of occurrence and, thus it would be clear that they havenot witnessed the appellant stabbing his wife. It is also theirevidence that they broke open the lock and went inside. If to beso, it would be quite clear that they have not witnessed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence and thus they cannot be termed as eye witness, but allhave spoken falsity in order to strengthen the case of theprosecution.

This Court heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutorappearing for the State on the above contentions and also perusedthe recorded evidence, both oral and documentary.

It is not in controversy that the deceased diedinstantaneously and was declared dead by the doctor, P.W.11,attached to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram. The prosecution hasalso succeeded in establishing the cause of death of the deceased, Malarvizhi, by examining P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted autopsyand the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-8 issued by him. The doctorhas opined that death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due toinjuries to blood vessels and vital organs. The evidence of thedoctor and the post-mortem certificate issued by him, conclusivelyestablish that the deceased Malarvizhi died on account of homicidalviolence. The said fact was not disputed by the appellant beforethe trial court nor it is disputed before this Court. On themedical evidence this Court holds that the deceased died on accountof homicidal violence.

The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellantstabbed the deceased to death. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 3. In the instant case, it istrue that P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and according to his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence he was present at the time of occurrence along with boththe spouses in the upstairs and when they started shouting, he gotdown and the door was locked and then sometime thereafter he alongwith P.W.s 2 and 3 heard the distressing cries of the deceased andthey went up and they knocked the door and when it was not opened, they broke open the lock and went inside and saw the deceased lyingin a pool of blood. At that time, the accused went out of the room.

The contention putforth by the learned counsel for theappellant that P.W.1 was not an eye witness cannot be accepted. Inthe instant case, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that when he came downfrom upstairs, only two persons were available, one being theappellant and the other being the deceased. Therefore, theappellant was in the company of his wife, the deceased, and within ashort time of ten minutes the deceased was found dead in a lockedroom and the appellant also went out of the room. Therefore, it isfor the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, to come outwith a responsible answer as to how his wife died, but in theinstant case, no explanation was forthcoming. On the contrary, theappellant would say that he did not know anything about theoccurrence and that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, which has been putforth by way of a memo before the trial court, which is nothing but utter falsehood in order to come out of theclutches of law. There is no circumstance or reason to disbelievethe evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is natural, acceptableand cogent and the trial court has accepted the same and rightlytoo.

The next contention of the learned counsel that the placeof occurrence is different and has not been properly shown in therough sketch also cannot be accepted. The occurrence has takenplace in a closed room in the upstairs in the house of P.W.1. Thewitnesses were available in the ground floor. The feeble attemptmade by the counsel for the appellant that the witnesses could nothave seen the occurrence cannot be accepted at all in view of thematerials available before us. Hence, we reject the said contentionas well.

The third contention putforth by the learned counsel forthe appellant is that there were two information in the crime to thepolice and the first information has been suppressed and now what isavailable before the court under Ex.P-1, which is the secondinformation, has got to be thoroughly discountenanced for thefollowing reasons. Admittedly, P.W.11, the doctor declared thedeceased dead at the Government Hospital, Rasipuram. It is also theadmitted position that within half an hour the doctor sent the deathintimation to the police station. Therefore, all that was availableto the police at that time was the intimation from the hospitalinforming about the death of the deceased and the same cannot formthe basis for registration of a crime and preparation of firstinformation report. What is generally expected of the policeofficer is that he make an entry in the general diary about thereceipt of the information. According to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspectorof Police, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, which stands marked https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as Ex.P-1 on the basis of which a case came to be registered under Section 302 IPC. Now at this juncture it has to be pointed out thatthe attempt to project that the intimation sent by the hospital at3.00 p.m. and a case came to be registered on the basis of that andthe same has been suppressed and subsequently Ex.P-1 has beenbrought into existence is an invention before the appellate forum. There are no circumstances to suspect that the first informationreport was given at 3.00 p.m. and the same has been suppressed. This Court is of the considered opinion that the ground urged by thelearned counsel for the appellant is too flimsy to be accepted andthe contentions put forward by the counsel for the appellant are allhackneyed weapons in the armoury of a desperate appellant and, therefore, have to be stated for being rejected. Accordingly, thesame is rejected.

The last contention that there was a quarrel preceding theoccurrence and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the benefitof one of the exceptions, cannot also be countenanced for the simplereason that there is no material available in the entire caserecords to suggest such an action. The evidence of P.W.1 is thatboth the spouses were shouting at each other and in that shoutingthere is nothing to show that the deceased uttered something bad dueto which the appellant got provoked and attacked the deceased. Ithas to be pointed out that in a given case like this, in order togive the benefit of any of the exceptions falling short of murderand to make it as one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the provocation should be sudden and the circumstances must beindicated for the said provocation. In the instant case, this Courtis unable to notice that the action of the appellant would attractany one of the ingredients to fall under any one of the exceptionsand, hence, the contention has got to be necessarily rejected.

The trial court was perfectly correct in finding theappellant guilty for murder and this Court is of the consideredopinion that no interference is called for with the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant.

In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentenceawarded by the trial court are confirmed. The criminal appeal isdismissed. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. Thelearned Sessions Judge shall take steps to secure the appellant andcommit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentenceimposed upon him.GLNSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1) The II Addl. Sessions Judge, Salem.2) -Do- Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.3) The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.4) -do- Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.5) The District Collector, Salem.6) The Director General of Police, Chennai.7) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.9) The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal District.+1 CC to Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate, SR No.36296.MRD(CO)BG/12.09.2005. CRL. A. NO. 961 OF 2000