Muruganandham v. State

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Accused was directed to release on bail in and by theorder of this Court dated.19.2.2007 made in Crl.M.P.No.1/2007 inCrl.A.NO.133/2007 on the file of this High Court, Madras.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.06.2009 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.133 OF 2007Muruganandham .. Appellant/AccusedVs.State represented byInspector of Police,Pallikona Police Station,Vellore District(Crime No.367 of 2005) .. Respondent/Complainant This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2)Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judgeat Vellore made in S.C.No.81 2006, dated 29.01.2007. For Appellant : Mr.MargabandhuFor Respondent: Mr.N.R.Elango, APP JUDGMENT(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal SessionsJudge,Vellore made in S.C.No.81 of 2006, whereby the accused/appellant tried, stood charged and found guilty underSection 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows: a)P.W.5 is the father of the deceased Manjula. She was given inmarriage to the accused/appellant and after the marriage, they lived7 or 8 months jointly and due to strained relationship, she came tothe parental house and on the advice given by her parents, she again https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ went to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, they were living happily.On the date of occurrence on 26.9.2005 at about 12.15 hours, PW2, anAuto Driver,when he was returning from Sriramapuram Kollai Kottaiafter dropping all the passengers, he heard the sound of cry of thedeceased and he stopped the vehicle and went inside the house andfound the deceased and accused quarrelling with each other and onebeating other and thereafter he pacified the situation and left theplace. On 26.9.2005 at about 7.30 hours, one Ravi informed to P.W.5Ramachandran that his daughter Manjula died and immediately he wentto the place of occurrence and found the dead body and he informed toP.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer b. PW1, the Village Administrative officer was in hisoffice at about 11'O clock along with his Assistant Soundararajan.Theaccused/appellant appeared before him and gave extra judicialconfession and the same was recorded and which is marked is Ex.P.1. c)Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent policestation where PW.9. was on duty. Then he produced the accused andalso gave a complaint Ex.P.2 along with the statement given by theaccused viz., Ex.P.1 and on the strength of Ex.P.2, a case came to beregistered in Crime No.367/2005 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.16, theF.I.R. along with the documents were sent to the Court. P.W.9 took upthe investigation, went to the place of occurrence and made aninspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.4, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.17, the rough sketch. He also recoveredbloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrenceunder a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead bodyof the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdarsand prepared Ex.P.18, the inquest report. Then, the dead body wassent for the purpose of post-mortem. d)P.W.6, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital,Vellore, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem onthe dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.9, the post-mortemcertificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear tohave died of asphyxia due to strangulation between 30 to 34 hoursprior to autopsy.e)Thereafter, a requisition Ex.P.10 was forwarded to theJudicial Magistrate, V,Vellore for sending the viscera for analysis.Ex.P.11 another requisition was also forwarded to the JudicialMagistrate to send the hyoid bone for chemical examination P.W.9arrested the accused. All the M.Os. are subjected to chemicalanalysis on a requisition made which is Ex.P.12 given by theInvestigating officer through the Judicial Magistrate No.5,Vellorewho in turn sent a requisition to the Forensic Department. All thematerial objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by theForensic Science laboratory, which resulted in Ex.P.14, theBiological report.Ex.P.15, the Serologist's report and P.W.9, theInspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completionof the investigation, he filed the final report. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions andnecessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the chargeslevelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnessesand also relied on 19 exhibits and 4 M.Os. On completion of theevidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questionedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances foundin the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused flatly deniedthe same as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court,after hearing the arguments advanced and scrutinizing the materialsavailable, took the view that the prosecution has proved the casebeyond reasonable doubt found him guilty and awarded punishment asreferred to above. Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance ofaccused/appellant herein. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, thelearned counsel would submit that in the instant case, theprosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Theprosecution has examined PW.2, an Auto-Driver, according to him,there was a quarrel and he also pacified the situation and there wereno other eye witness to the incident. PW2 was not examined as an eyewitness. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given bythe accused to PW1. According to PW1, the Village AdministrativeOfficer, while he was in his office at 11 a.m. the accused came thereand gave an extra judicial confession and the same was recorded byhim which is marked as Ex.P.1. But, this evidence of PW1 does notrelied on by PW5. According to PW5 when he went to the house ofManjula, he found the dead body and the accused/appellant was alsopresent in the place of occurrence. PW1, the Village AdministrativeOfficer, came to the house where the dead body was found and theaccused was taken to the Police Station and thus from the evidence ofPW5, the claim of PW1 that the accused appeared before the Court andgave a confessional statement, cannot be false. The entire case restsonly on that evidence and if a part of evidence is not believed, thenthe prosecution had no legs to stand. Under such circumstances, thetrial court should have acquitted the accused, but had taken anerroneous view. Added further the learned counsel that the other partof the evidence was of no legal consequence and hence it is a fitcase where the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutoron the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration onthe submissions made.6.It is not in controversy that Manjula,daughter of PW5 andthe wife of the accused was actually done to death following theincident that had taken place at the night hours on 26.9.2005. Afterthe inquest was made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body wassubjected to post-mortem by P.W.6 Doctor and the Doctor who has givenhis categorical opinion that the deceased would appear to have diedof asphyxia due to strangulation. The fact that the deceased died outof homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before thetrial court and hence it has got to be recorded so. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that itwas the accused who caused the death of his wife, the prosecution hadno direct evidence at all. It rested entire case on circumstantialevidence and in particular, it rested its entire case on the extrajudicial confession which is given by the accused to PW1, the VillageAdministrative officer of the concerned place. Before accepting thecase of the prosecution, in a case like this, if it is rested uponthe extra judicial confession, the Court must apply two tests.Firstly, under what circumstances the extra judicial confession wasalleged to have been given by the accused and secondly whether theevidence of the person to whom extra judicial confession alleged tohave been given inspires confidence of the Court. In the instantcase, the occurrence has taken place on the night hours on 25.9.2005.According to PW1, the Village Administrative officer of the concernedplace,the accused came to his office at 11 a.m. and he gave aconfession statement which is marked under Ex.P.1 and he alsorecorded the presence of his Assistants. Immediately, when it isrecorded, he prepared Ex.P.2 report and took him to the policestation and Investigating Officer PW9 has registered the case. In theinstant case, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for theappellant that when PW5,Ramachandran came to the house of hisdaughter and he found the dead body and his son-in-law, theaccused/appellant was also present there. It is further to be pointedout that at the time when PW5 came to the place of the occurrence,the accused/appellant was also present. Even from the evidence ofVillage Administrative officer it is evident that the accused went tothe office of the Village Administrative officer and gave aconfessional statement and after recording the statement of theaccused, the Village Administrative Officer went to the place ofoccurrence, verified and then he proceeded to the respondent PoliceStation to give a complaint along with the accused. The Court isunable to see any inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.1 and 5.Merely because PW5 said that his son-in-law, the accused/appellantwas present in the house where the occurrence had taken place, itcannot be said that no statement was given to PW1, the VillageAdministrative Officer. Apart from this, the Court is unable to seeany reason or circumstances why PW1, Village Administrative Officershould come before the Court of law and has given a false evidenceagainst the accused/appellant. The evidence of PW1 orally madeinspires the confidence of the Court. Under such circumstances, ithas got to be accepted. Further, in the instant case, the cause ofdeath has spoken to by the accused in his confessional statementrecorded by PW1 under EX.P.1 and also it was spoken to by PW6,Postmortem Doctor. All the material facts found in the confessionalstatement Ex.P.1 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.Under the circumstances, the trial court is perfectly correct inplacing the records of Ex.P1, the confessional statement to sustainthe conviction. The prosecution has proved that it was theaccused/appellant who caused the death of his wife which leaves nodoubt in the mind of the court.8. Insofar as the second line of argument, even assuming it wasthe act of the accused, this court is able to see force in thecontention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence took place in the night hours. According to PW2, there wasa quarrel between the spouses and one was beating the other. It wasduring night hour, when the accused was actually calling forintercourse, the deceased was not willing for the same. Hence, therewas a wordy quarrel between them. Being provoked by thecircumstances, the accused/appellant has acted so. In view of thecircumstances attendant, the court is of the considered opinion thatthe act of the accused cannot be said to be one premeditated or pre-planned or intentional, but it was due to sudden quarrel andprovocation. Hence the act of the accused would attract the penalprovision of Section 304(I) IPC and awarding punishment of 7 yearsR.I. would meet the ends of justice. 9.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, theappellant is convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and is directed toundergo 7 years R.I. The period of sentence already undergone by theappellant is ordered to be given set off. With the abovemodification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal isdisposed of. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar VJYTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.2.The Judicial Magistrate,No.V, Vellore.3.-do-Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Vellore.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Vellore.5.The Inspector of Police, Pallikona Police Station, Vellore District.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.7.The District Collector, Vellore District.8.The Director General of Police,Chennai.+ 1 cc t Mr.R.Margabandhu,Advocate,SR.26212Copy to : The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.CRL.A.NO.133 OF 2007GR(CO)EM/10.7.09