Parandhaman v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.8.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPANAND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAULCriminal Appeal No.187 of 2009Parandhaman .. Appellant/Accused Vs.State, represented by Inspector of Police,Arakonam Town Police Station(Crime No.840/1999) .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer : Appeal filed U/s.374 (2) of Cr.P.C.against the Judgment,dated 22.6.2005, passed in S.C.No.272 of 2004 on the file ofPrincipal Sessions Judge, Vellore.* * *For Appellant :: M/s.M.G.Sankaran For Respondent :: Mr. Hassan Mohammed Jinnah Addl. Public ProsecutorJ U D G M E N T (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.JEYAPAUL, J.) The sole Accused Parandhaman, who was convicted for theoffence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and wassentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, moves the present appeal. 2. On the side of the prosecution, eleven witnesses wereexamined and eleven documents and thirteen material objects weremarked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on theside of defence. 3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case,as unfolded by the witnesses, reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PW.1 Venkatesan is the brother of deceased Valliyammal andPW.2 Devaki is the wife of PW.1. The accused Parandhaman is noneother than the husband of the deceased Valliyammal. The accusedalong with the deceased Valliyammal resided opposite the house ofPW.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki at Bangaramma Kandigai village. About five years ago, accused Parandhaman married the deceasedValliyammal. Only for few days did they lead the happy marriedlife. After they were blessed with two children, the accusedParandhaman became a drunkard. He refused to part with any moneyeven for household expenditure. The accused used to beatValliyammal often. Valliyammal, aggrieved by the attitude of theaccused, used to return to the house of PW.1 Venkatesan. Threemonths prior to the occurrence, the accused beat Valliyammal and hischildren and sent them away. PW.5 Subramani, a panchayatar,conciliated the matrimonial disputes between the accused and thedeceased for two occasions and sent Valliyammal to the accusedParandhaman. Only for about a week's time were they happy.Thereafter they started quarrelling with each other. On account of the harassment and cruelty committed by theaccused as against Valliyammal, the latter became sick and could notcooperate for cohabitation with the accused. On 3.11.1999 at about 8 pm, Valliyammal came to the house ofP.Ws.1 and 2; that was a day of Deepavali and after bursting crackersand taking meals during night, Valliyammal returned to matrimonialhome at 10.30 pm. The distance between the house of P.Ws.1 and 2and the house of the accused was just 100 ft. Everyone went to bedafter Valliyammal left for her matrimonial home. At about 1 am on 4.11.1999, there was a hue and cry in thehouse of the accused Parandhaman. P.W.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devakicould hear the wailing noise of the sister of P.W.1. P.Ws.1and 2 rushed to the house of accused armed with torch-light and theyheard the shouting of the accused at Valliyammal. They also heardValliyammal crying aloud. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the accusedParandhaman attacking Valliyammal with the knife used to cut tendercoconuts on the neck, head and all over the body indiscriminately.When PW.1 Venkatesan challenged the accused Parandhaman, but thelatter took to the heels showing the knife. P.Ws.1 and 2 sawValliyammal dead in a pool of blood. Their children aged five yearsand three years were found crying on seeing their mother in a pool ofblood. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PW.4 Kuppan, the neighbour of PWs. 1 and 2 and the accused sawthe accused running away from his house armed with Knife at about 1am on 4.11.1999. PW.1 Venkatesan proceeded to Arakonam Town Police Station andlodged the Complaint-Ex.P1 to PW.9 Thulasi, Sub Inspector of Policeand PW.9 registered a case in Crime No.840/2009 under Section 302 IPCand prepared Printed First Information Report-Ex.P9 and despatchedthe original of the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concernedand the copies thereof to the higher officials. PW.10 Mr.Mutharasu, Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town PoliceStation, having received a copy of First Information Report at about8 am on 4.11.1999, rushed to the scene of occurrence at about 8.30am. He inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW.6Village Administrative Officer Logan and another and preparedObservation mahazar-Ex.P4. He also drew Rough Sketch-Ex.P10. Hearranged to take photographs of the dead body through PhotographerPW.7 Balakrishnan. The photographs were marked as Ex.P6 and thenegatives thereof were marked as Ex.P7. PW.10 Inspector Mr.Mutharasu seized M.Os.1 and 2,Blood stained mats, MO.3 Blood stained bed sheet, M.O.4 Bloodstained pillow and M.Os.5 and 6 Blood stained pillows tied withNylon saree from the scene of occurrence under Ex.5 Mahazarin the presence of very same witnesses. He held inquest on thedead body of Valliyammal between 10 am and 1 pm on 4.11.1999 in thepresence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P11 InquestReport. He examined PW.1 Venkatesan, PW.2 Devaki, PW.4 Kuppan,PW.5 Subramani and other witness and recorded their statements. Hesent Requisition-Ex.P2 through PW.8 Paul Michel, Head Constableattached to Arakonam Town Police Station, for the purpose ofconducting autopsy on the dead body of Valliyammal. PW.3 Dr.Jeeva, attached to Government Hospital, Arakonam,having received the requisition from the Inspector of Police,Arakonam through PW.8, commenced post-mortem examination on the bodyof Valliyammal at 3 pm on 4.11.1999 and found the following externaland internal injuries: "External Injuries:1. An incised wound over the right cheek extended uptobelow the right ear 7 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. Angle ofmandible fractured. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. An incised wound on the back of scalp right side whichextended from behind the right ear to the occiput 12 cm x 3cm x bone deep.3. An incised wound 2 cm above the 2nd wound 7 cm x 2cm x bone deep. Parietal bone fractured.4. An incised wound 1 cm above the 3rd wound 5 cm x 3 cmx bone deep.5. An incised wound over the left side of the frontalregion 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.6. An incised wound over the left occipito parietal region10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.7. An incised wound 1 cm lateral to 6th injury6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.8. An incised wound 1 cm lateral to the 7th injury5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.9. An incised wound over the nape of the neck2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.10. An incised wound over the back of the neck2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.11. An incised wound over the left side of the neck justbelow the mandible 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.12. An incised wound over the right side of the chin1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.13. An incised injury over the palmar side of left wristand hand 1 cm x 4 cm x bone deep. Tendons cut. Bonesfractured.14. An incised wound over the dorsum of left hand8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.15. An incised wound over the dorsum of right hand5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.16. An incised wound over the dorsum of right hand justbelow the 15th wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. An incised wound over the right forearm3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.18. An incised wound over the right deltoid region1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.19. An incised wound over the middle third of right upperarm 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.20. An incised wound over the right lateral chest wall2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.21. An incised wound over the right lumbar region2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.22. An incised wound over the back of the left Elbowjoint 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.Internal Examination:-Abdomen & Thorax opened. No fracture, ribs and Hyoidbone intact. Heart chambers empty. Lungs congested.Stomach – empty. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys – Congested.Intestines – Distended. Uterus – Normal in size. Cavity– empty. Bladder – empty. Skull opened, right parietalbone fractured, base of skull intact. Meninges intact.Brain – Congested." He opined in Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate that the deceasedappeared to have died of Shock and Haemorrhage due to multipleinjuries she sustained, about 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem. PW.8 Paul Michel seized MO.7 Green colour jacket, MO.8Green colour petticoat, MO.9 Saree, MO.10 Gold Nose screw, MO.11 Onepair of Gold Ear stud, MO.12 Gold Thali with Thali thread and MO.13Gold Gnanakuzhai from the dead body after postmortem examination wasover and submitted the same under Special Report to PW.10 InspectorMutharasu for the purpose of investigation in this matter. PW.10 Inspector Mutharasu examined PW.3 Dr.Jeeva and otherwitnesses in this case and recorded their statements. After he wastransferred, PW.11 Inspector Mr.Karuppasamy took up theinvestigation, examined PW.7 Photographer Balakrishnan and anotherand recorded their statements. He completed the investigation andlaid final report on 13.3.2001 as against the accused underSection 302 IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The incriminating circumstances as spoken to by thewitnesses were put to the accused in the form of questionnaire andthe accused having completely denied his role in the commission ofmurder of the deceased, set up an alibi. In other words, hecontended that he was away from the village at the time ofoccurrence. The accused did not choose to examine any witnessor mark any document on his side. 5. The Trial Court, having heavily relied upon the oculartestimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the medical evidence available onrecord, returned a verdict of conviction as against the appellant. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, whooften picked up quarrel with Valliyammal, his wife, attacked her onthe fateful day on 4.11.1999 at about 1 am indiscriminately withknife and caused her instantaneous death and thereby he committed anoffence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki, the brother andco-sister of the deceased Valliyammal, resided just opposite thematrimonial house of Valliyammal wherein the accused and Valliyammalresided at the time of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categoricallyspoken before the Court that only for few days, the marital life ofValliyammal with the accused was peaceful and thereafter the accusedpicked up quarrel with the deceased often and sent her to the houseof PW.1 Venkatesan. It is in evidence that on account of the torturemeted out to the deceased Valliyammal, she fell sick and could notcooperate for the cohabitation solicited by her husband Parandhaman. 8. PW.5 Subramani has lent corroboration to the evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 to the effect that panchayat was convened twice onaccount of the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and thematter was compromised and Valliyammal was sent to the house of theaccused. The occurrence had taken place within about ten days afterpanchayatar sent Valliyammal to the house of the accused. Motiveaspect of the case has been clinchingly established by theprosecution through P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. 9. Coming to the occurrence proper, P.W.1 Venkatesan and PW.2Devaki have spoken to the fact that on 3.11.1999, being Deepavaliday, the deceased Valliyammal came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 andshe, in fact, burst crackers and having taken dinner, got back to herhouse at about 10.30 pm on 3.11.1999. They have also deposed that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at about 1 am on 4.11.1999, there was an unusual cry emanated fromthe deceased Valliyammal. The accused Parandhaman also raised hisvoice. Having heard such wailing noise and loud cry of her sister,P.W.1 Venkatesan rushed to the house of the accused along with PW.2Devaki armed with torch-light and found the accused cuttingValliyammal with the Knife used to cut tender coconut on her neck,head and all over her body indiscriminately resulting in her death.PW.4 Kuppan, the neighbour, whose presence cannot be doubted at oddhour, has spoken to the fact that he actually witnessed the accusedrunning away from his house with weapon at 1 am on 4.11.1999. Theaforesaid testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 is found to be quitenatural and trustworthy. 10. Coming to the medical testimony, we find that PW.3Dr.Jeeva, who conducted post-mortem examination at 3 pm on 4.11.1999,found as many as twenty two incised wounds all over the body of thedeceased Valliyammal. Many of the injuries were found on the head ofthe deceased. He has opined that the deceased appeared to have diedof shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. Themedical evidence lends corroboration to the evidence of the ocularwitnesses in this case. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellantsubmits that PW.6 VAO Logan who allegedly cooperated with theInvestigation Officer during the course of preparation of observationmahazar, has deposed before the Court that it was he who passed onthe information to the police, after he came down to the scene ofoccurrence at 6 am on 4.11.1999. He would also refer to the evidenceof PW.6, who testified that when he was at the scene of occurrenceat 6.30 am on 4.11.1999, he saw PW.1 Venkatesan at the scene ofoccurrence. Therefore the origin of the First Information is highlydoubtful, he contends. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmits that there was, of course, some variation between theevidence of P.W.1 Venkatesan and P.W.6 VAO Logan as to the exacttime at which Ex.P1 Complaint was lodged to PW.9 Sub InspectorThulasi of Arakonam Town Police Station. But such a small variationin the matter of lodging the complaint will not go to the root ofthe case, he would submit. 13. The First Information Report has been registered by PW.9Thulasi, Sub Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town Police Stationexactly at 7 am on 4.11.1999. PW.1 Venkatesan had reached thePolice Station much earlier to the registration of First InformationReport by PW.9. Of course, PW.6 VAO Logan would state that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed on the information to the Police Station after he arrived atthe scene of crime at 6 AM. Firstly PW.6 has not stated so in hisstatement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Secondly such a version was notsupported by PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.9 Sub Inspector Thulasi. 14. In this context, it is also relevant to note that theFirst Information Report has reached the Court at 8.30 am on4.11.1999 itself. Quite probably the message sent by PW.6 VAO Loganwould have been subsequent to the complaint already lodged by PW.1Venkatesan with Arakonam Town Police Station. At any rate such aminor discrepancy would not go to the root of the prosecution case. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant wouldfurther submit that the occurrence would have taken place on accountof the hostility between the family of the accused and PW.4 Kuppan.PW.4 Kuppan of course is a neighbour of the accused. The stronghostility between these two families has not been made out by theaccused. PW.1 Venkatesan is the brother of the deceased Valliyammal.If at all somebody murdered her and not his brother-in-law, PW.1would not have roped in his own brother-in-law who was innocent inthe crime of murder of his sister. In the above circumstances, weare disclined to accept the view of the learned counsel for theappellant that on account of the hostility subsisted between thefamily of the deceased and PW.4 Kuppan the occurrence had takenplace. 16. It is true that the Knife, which was the weapon ofoffence, was not recovered in this case. The fact remains that theaccused absconded not for few days or few months, but for four longyears and it was on account of which the trial itself was delayed.The description of the weapon of offence and the location of thesame would have been in the exclusive knowledge of the accused.Therefore it is quite impossible to recover the weapon of offencein the absence of the accused during the course of investigation. 17. Of course, the accused has set up a plea of alibi. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant also refers to theresponse of the accused when he was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C to the effect that he was not at all present in theoccurrence village during the time of occurrence. 18. The plea of alibi should be established by the accused.Except some suggestions made by the accused and the plea of alibiultimately taken by him when he was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C, no strong material was forthcoming from the side of theaccused to show robustly that he was not present at the time of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence in the occurrence village. The materials on record alsodoes not even vaguely suggest alibi set up by the Accused.Therefore we are not inclined to accept the plea of alibi which wasnot established. 19. Referring to the medical evidence, the learned counselappearing for the appellant would submit that the occurrence shouldhave taken place between 3 pm and 9 pm on 3.11.1999. But the timeof death was suppressed by the prosecution for reasons best known tothem, it is contended. 20. We find that there is reliable and trustworthy oculartestimony to the effect that the occurrence took place at 1 am on4.11.1999. The evidence of PW.3 Dr.Jeeva is only opinion evidencebased on the appearance and symptoms found on the dead body. Theopinion evidence will never unseat the robust ocular testimonyavailable on record. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court inthe decision in STATE OF U.P. V. HARI CHAND (2009 CRI. L. J.3039) (SC) that when eye witnesses' account is found credible andtrustworthy, medical opinion pointing to the alternativepossibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. 21. It is true that P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak to the factthat the deceased, having taken meals from their house, gone back toher matrimonial house at about 10.30 pm on 3.11.1999. It is nottheir evidence that the deceased took dinner at 10.30 pm. It istheir case that the deceased departed from their house at 10.30pm. Even otherwise there had been a gap of about 2 1/2 hoursbetween her departure and the occurrence. It is nobody's case thatthe deceased took meat during dinner time. If she had takenvegetarian stuff, it would have been digested within 2 1/2 hours.There is no reason for PW.1 Venkatesan to come out with anartificial version that the occurrence took place in the mid of nightwhen actually the occurrence took place between 3 pm and 9 pm on3.11.1999. 22. We find that the occurrence had taken place at 1 am on4.11.1999. As it was night time, PW.1 Venkatesan, who lost hislovely sister, had gone to the Police Station in the morning at 7 amand lodged the complaint. The complaint was registered at 7 am on4.11.1999 and the same has reached the Court at 8.30 am itself.It is also brought to our notice by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor that the statements of the material witnesses examined inthe case, reached the Court on 5.11.1999 itself. Therefore there isno question of fabrication of the case as against the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. The last submission alternatively made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant is that the accused would have beenactivated by sudden provocation as the deceased did not cooperate forcohabitation in the mid of the night and attacked the deceased andthat therefore the accused may be given the benefit of exception(iv) under Section 300 IPC. He also referred to the decision of theDivision Bench of this Court in MUTHUVEL & ANOTHER V. STATE BYINSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELARAJAKULARAMAN POLICE STATION,VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT [2004-1-L.W. (Crl.) 67]. 24. That was a case where the deceased of course refusedto have sexual intercourse with the first accused. But the facts ofthat case would reveal that the deceased having exhibited non-cooperation for the cohabitation, removed the 'Thali' from her neckand threw it on the face of the first accused. Having not beensatisfied with such provocation given by the deceased, the latteralso gave a kick on the chest of the first accused. In the abovespecial facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench ofthis Court held that such a cumulative act of the deceased causedsudden provocation to the accused to cause her death. But in thepresent case the deceased was harassed by the accused. On accountof the cruelty committed by the accused, it appears that the deceasedfell sick and could not discharge her matrimonial obligation. Thenon-cooperation of the deceased in such circumstances would not haveprovoked a prudent man to behave like a beast. Therefore theaforesaid ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred todecision, does not apply to the present facts and circumstances ofthis case. 25. We find that the prosecution has established the casebeyond reasonable doubt that the accused armed with Knife, attackedthe innocent victim, the deceased in this case and caused herinstantaneous death. The Trial Court has rightly returned a verdictconviction. There is no warrant for interference with the wellmerited judgment of the Trial Court. 26. The judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Courtunder Section 302 IPC and sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed onthe accused stand confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vksTo1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vellore.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Arkonam.3.-do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Vellore.4. The Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town Police Station,Vellore District.5.The Superintendent of Prisons,Central Prison, Vellore-2.6.The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.7. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.9. The Section Officer, Criminal Side Section, High Court,Madras-104.CK(CO)km/10.9.CRL.A.No.187 of 2009