Natarajan.. v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.01.2009 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.503 OF 2008Natarajan.. Appellant/AccisedVs.State rep. byInspector of Police,D-1, Triplicane Police Station,Chennai-600 005... Respondent/Respondent This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2)Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chennai made in S.C.No.154 of 2006,dated 13.07.2007. For Appellant : Mr.C.H.Vinobha GandhiFor Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan, APPJUDGMENT(The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District andSessions Division, Fast Track Court-II, Chennai made in S.C.No.154 of2006, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections302 and 201 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 2years R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine ofRs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 201 IPC andthe sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated as follows:a)P.W.1 is the Manager employed in Capital Guest House, No.2,Owliya Sahib Street, 3rd Lane, Anna Salai, Chennai within thejurisdiction of the respondent police station. P.Ws.6,10 and 18 are thestaff members of the said guest house. P.W.11 is the owner of the saidguest house. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b)On 30.12.2005 at 9.30 p.m., the accused and the deceasedapproached P.W.1 when he was in duty and asked him to let out a room.The accused also paid Rs.300/- as advance. At that time, P.Ws.6,10 and18 were sitting on shofa near the reception. The accused wrote hisaddress at page 1550 of the ledger, which was marked as Ex.P.3. Theaccused was allotted room No.204 and he was staying with the deceased.c)On 31.12.2005 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1 was coming from theupstairs. At that time, the accused took tea. P.W.18 also suppliedtiffin. On the same day evening, both the accused and the deceased wentout and at about 7.30 p.m., they came back to the room. Both of themwere staying over there on the very night. On 01.01.2006, the accusedasked P.W.10 to supply tiffin. Accordingly, it was supplied. At about3.15 p.m., the accused went out telling P.W.10 that sister was sleepingin the room. At 6.00 p.m., P.W.10 took a tea to room No.204 and he foundthat the room was kept open and the T.V. was switched on and apart fromthat, the tube light was also burning. But, he could not find thedeceased and he thought that the deceased was in the bathroom. After 5minutes, P.W.10 took another tea, but the room was in the same positionand even at that time, he could not find her. After raising sound, hewent to the bathroom and found the deceased lying dead in the bathroom.Immediately, it was informed to P.W.11.d)P.W.11 asked P.W.1 to go to the police station and to lodge acomplaint. P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave thecomplaint to P.W.13, which was marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.13 also registereda case in Crime No.4 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.28, theF.I.R. was despatched to the Court.e)P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of theF.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made aninspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.22, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.23, the rough sketch. He also recovered thematerial objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence ofthe witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.29, the inquestreport. f)Thereafter, the Finer Print Expert was called for and he alsotook the finger prints from the materials available there. The fingerprints of the accused were also taken after his arrest. Afterverification, the Finger print expert filed the reports, namely Ex.P.5and P.6. Thereafter, the photographs were also taken. The dead body wassent to the Government Hospital, Royapettah for the purpose of autopsy.g)P.W.23, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital,Royapettah, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on thedead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.26, the post-mortemcertificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear tohave died of Asphyxia due to traumatic compression of the neck withobstruction of the airways. h)Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 10.01.2006 bythe Investigator and the accused came forward to give confessionalstatement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, theadmissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.30. Following the same,M.O.2, gold chain was recovered from P.W.7, Pawn broker. P.W.9 was alsoexamined. According to him, he is the friend of the accused and M.O.2was handed over to him and it was he who pledged the same with P.W.7, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from whom M.O.2 was recovered. Further, M.Os.8 and 23, gold ear ring andone pair of mattal respectively were also recovered from the accused.Apart from that, the handwriting expert was called for. The admittedsignature of the accused was taken and it was compared with the ledgerthat was recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation andthey were found tallying. After the opinion of the Doctor, the case wasaltered to Section 302 IPC and the alteration report was sent to thecourt. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer hasfiled the final report.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessarycharges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelledagainst the accused, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and alsorelied on 32 exhibits and 23 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on theside of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defencewitness was examined. The trial court, on hearing the submissions madeon either side and looking into the materials available, took the viewthat the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt andfound the accused/appellant guilty as per the charges and awardedpunishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal has arisen at theinstance of the appellant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learnedcounsel made the following submissions:a)The prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it hasrested its entire case on circumstantial evidence. The firstcircumstance relied on by the prosecution is actually the handwriting ofthe accused, which was sought to be proved through P.Ws.15 and 16.According to the Investigator, the ledger from the Capital Guest Housewas recovered and it was the accused who has actually written hisaddress and also put his signature in the ledger at the time ofallotment of the room and it was actually compared by the HandwritingExpert with the admitted signature. According to the prosecution, thereports were marked as Exs.P.8 and P.9. As per the opinion, they werefound tallying. In this regard, the prosecution examined P.Ws.15 and 16,but both the witnesses have turned hostile. Hence those reports couldnot be accepted at all and they should have been rejected. b)So far as the Finer Print expert was concerned, the occurrencehas taken place, according to the prosecution, on 1.1.2006 and theaccused was arrested on 10.01.2006. The reports would show that theInvestigator has taken the finger prints of the accused on the very day,namely on 10.01.2006. The finger print expert's report should have beenrejected for the simple reason that the finger print report wouldclearly indicate that proper procedures have not been followed at all.Apart from that, it was a public lodge and according to the prosecution,the occurrence has taken place at about 3.30 p.m. and the dead body wasfound at about 6.00 p.m. and for a period of nearly 3 hours, the roomwas kept open and somebody could have entered into the room in betweenthese hours and even as per the prosecution case, jewels were stolen.According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested and hisconfessional statement was recorded and the jewels were recovered fromhim. The prosecution has marched two witnesses in this regard, who are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Ws.15 and 16, but they have turned hostile. Apart from that, there isnobody to identify M.Os.2,8 and 23 and there is no evidence to show thatit belonged to the deceased or they were worn by the deceased. Theprosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9. Their evidence wouldclearly indicate that the accused was the customer and also was knownfor a long time. The accused could not have committed the offence atall. Further, the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution also didnot support the case of the prosecution for the simple reason that theDoctor, who has conducted post-mortem, has not indicated anywhere thetime of death. All would go to show that the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove its case and all these aspects were not considered bythe trial court. Hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal in thehands of this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.6.It is not in controversy that the dead body of Neela @ Neelavathiwas found in the Capital Guest House on 1.1.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. anda case came to be registered by the respondent police under Section 174Cr.P.C. Following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.23, the Doctor, who has given his opinion after conductingpost-mortem that she would appear to have died of Asphyxia due totraumatic compression of the neck with obstruction of the airways. Theabove fact was never disputed by the appellant before the trial court.Hence, no impediment is felt by this court in recording so. 7.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who caused thedeath of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, theprosecution had no direct evidence to offer. Hence it has rested itsentire case on circumstantial evidence. It is not that the court isunmindful of caution made by the settled principles of law that in agiven case like this when the prosecution rested its case oncircumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogent and shouldconstitute a chain without a snap, pointing to the hypotheses thatexcept the accused, no one else could have committed the offence. Thecourt, even after applying the said test, is thoroughly satisfied thatit was the accused who has committed the crime. 8.The occurrence has taken place in a lodge belonged to P.W.11,where P.W.1 was the Manager. According to P.W.1, on 30.12.2005, theaccused came over there along with the deceased and asked a room androom No.204 was allotted to him and it was the accused who wrote theaddress and put his signature in the ledger, which was marked as Ex.P.3and he has also given an advance. According to P.W.1, he has also seenthe accused on a few occasions when he has come out from the room. Apartfrom that, P.Ws.10 and 18 are the room boys and they have supplied notonly tea, but also tiffin to the accused from 30.12.2005 to 01.01.2006for nearly a period of about 2 days and on all these occasions, they hadseen the accused in the company of the deceased. It is true,identification parade has not been conducted and it is a public lodge.But, at the same time, P.Ws.10 and 18, the room boys had seen theaccused on number of occasions when they went to room to supply tea and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tiffin also. It is quite natural that it would cause dent in theirmemory. In a given case like this, an identification parade need not beconducted. The identification parade is not must in every case and itshould not be forgotten that the identification parade is a supportivepiece of evidence and it is only to corroborate with the main piece ofevidence. In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 18 that theyhad seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the room for aperiod of 2 days, in the considered opinion of the court, would suffice. 9.Further, there are two other circumstances and one was the FingerPrint Expert's opinion, which are marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6. TheInvestigating Officer has invited the Finger Print Expert to take thefinger prints that were available inside the bathroom on the very day.Further, the finger prints of the accused were also taken on 10.01.2006,namely on the date of his arrest. They were compared by the Finger PrintExpert, who has given his reports that the finger prints taken from thebathroom were found tallying with the finger prints that were taken fromthe accused by the Investigator. It is true, P.Ws.15 and 16 have turnedhostile, but on that ground, the evidence put forth by the prosecutioncannot be rejected. 10.Apart from the Finger Print Expert opinion, the handwriting ofthe accused was taken and it was compared with the ledger. P.W.1 was theManager of the lodge and he has not only identified him, but also hasgiven the ledger, in which the accused has written his address and puthis signature. The handwriting was also found to be tallying and henceit would also corroborate with the other piece of evidence available. 11.In the instant case, it is true, the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove the recovery of jewels from the accused and they werenot identified that it belonged to the deceased or they were worn by thedeceased. Even assuming that the prosecution has miserably failed toprove this part, the court is of the considered opinion that theprosecution has proved the circumstances narrated above, namelyP.Ws.1,10 and 18 had seen the accused in the company of the deceased inroom No.204 and the accused left the room on 1.1.2006 at 3.15 p.m. andthe dead body was found at 6.00 p.m. and immediately, it was brought tothe notice of the police and the investigation was taken up. The addedcircumstances are the opinions of the finger print expert and thehandwriting expert. Thus, the scientific evidence was in favour of theprosecution. Therefore, in the instant case, the contentions put forthby the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any meritwhatsoever and they are liable to be rejected and accordingly, they wererightly rejected by the trial court. It is a case where the accused hastaken the deceased from Pudukkottai to Madras and was staying with herin the lodge and has caused her death and fled away from the place ofoccurrence. Thus, the circumstances were placed and proved by theprosecution and it has brought home the guilt of the accused.Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court has got to be sustained onboth the charges of murder and screening of evidence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same isdismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant by the trial court.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkTo1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chennai.2.Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai-600 005.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirapalli.1 cc To Mr.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi, Advocate, SR.2698.CRL.A.NO.503 OF 2008KA(CO)RVL 30.01.2009