I.S.Vasu(P.W.8) v. 1. Dr.Krishnan(A1)2. Dr.Subba Rao(A2)3. The Inspector of Police Anna Nagar Circle R-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-08-2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCriminal Revision No.1556 of 2003I.S.Vasu(P.W.8)..Petitioner -vs-1. Dr.Krishnan(A1)2. Dr.Subba Rao(A2)3. The Inspector of Police Anna Nagar Circle R-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai .. Respondent This revision is filed against the Judgment made in S.C.No.520of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, City CivilCourt,Chennai dated 18.6.2003.For Petitioner : Mr..Raja Senthoor Pandian For respondents : Mr. A.Padmanabhan-RR1 & 2 Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam-R3 Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This revision has been preferred by P.W.8 in S.C.No.520 of 2000 onthe file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. BothA1 and A2 have been charged under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC. 2. The case was taken on file by XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,Chennai and after furnishing the copies to the accused under Section 207of Cr.P.C. On his appearance on summons, committed the case to the Courtof Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. since the case is exclusivelytriable by a Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, has framedcharges under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC against A1 and A2 and whenquestioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.3. On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 20 were examined.Exs P1 to P26 were exhibited. M.O.1 to M.O.10 were marked.4.P.W.1 Sivakumar is the complainant, who has preferred ExP1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint with the police, after seeing a body floating on the well in hisbackyard on 22.10.1998. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1, who alsocorroborates the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that a body was floatingin the well on the backyard of his house and on information police came tothe place of occurrence and retrieved the body from the well.4a. P.W.3 Selvaraj, who took the body from the well and removed thesame in his three wheeler cycle to mortuary. P.W4 and P.W.5 the Mahazarwitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution except P.W.4admitting his signature in Ex P2 mahazar as ExP3 and P.W.5 admitting hissignature as Ex P5 in ExP4 mahazar.4b. P.W.6 is a well-wisher of the family of the deceased as well asthe accused who had arranged the marriage between them. P.W.7 recoverymahazar witness who has also not supported the case of the prosecutionexcept admitting his signature as Ex P7 in ExP6.4c. P.W.8 is the father of the deceased, who had identified thecorpse which was floating in the well of P.W.1's house on 23.10.1998. Hehas also identified the corpse on 25.10.1998 in the mortuary of KilpaukMedical College Hospital. According to him, his deceased daughter priorto the occurrence, had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from him. Only on therequest made by the parents of the accused, he has not preferred anycomplaint to the police regarding the demand of dowry. According to him,the marriage between A1 and the deceased took place on 14.6.1998 atRaghavendra Wedding Hall and at that time, he had presented 100 sovereignsof gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and has also agreed to presenta plot at Tirupathy and that after the marriage both the accused and thedeceased were living happily and he took back his daughter during themonth of Aadi and thereafter she was staying in his house for nearly 1 ½months and on 27.8.1998, he again took her daughter left at the house ofA1. According to him, A1 had also informed him about him about thesuicidal attempt made by the deceased.4d. P.W.9 is the brother of the deceased, who would categorically saythat there was no demand of dowry by A1 and his family. P.W.10 is thepostmortem constable, who had handed over the corpse to the KilpaukMedical College Hospital and identified the corpse to the doctor, who hadconducted autopsy. After autopsy, he had recovered M.O.1 to M.O.6 andhanded over the same to the Investigating Officer,P.W.14. P.W.11 is theSub Inspector of Police who had registered the case on the basis of thecomplaint Ex P1 as Choolaimedu Police Station Crime No.1155/1998 underSection 174 of Cr.P.C.4e. P.W.12 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpsewhich was identified by P.W.10. Ex P14 is the post mortem certificateissued by her. Her final opinion is Ex P16. The doctor has opined that thedeceased would have died due to diazepam poison and further opined thatthe death would have occurred 60 to 72 hours prior to the post mortem. Thedoctor has further opined that drowning was postmortem in nature. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4f. P.W.13 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had conductedinquest on the corpse of Rajalakshmi, Ex P17 is his inquest report. Ex P18series are the statements of the witnesses, who had examined. He hasstated in his examination that his enquiry revealed that there was nodowry harassment by the accused on the deceased. P.W.14 is theInvestigating Officer, who took up the investigation in this case, visitedthe place of occurrence and prepared Ex P2 andEx P4 observation Mahazars and had drawn rough sketches ExP19 and Ex P20.Ex P21 is the inquest report of the Inspector Ashok Kumar. Ex P22 is therecovery mahazar prepared by Ashok kumar. He has examined the witnessesand recorded their statements. He has given a letter of requisition tothe Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry.4g. P.W.15 is the predecessor of P.W.14, who had prepared observationMahazar. P.W.16 is another investigating Officer, who had drawn a roughsketch Ex P20. P.W.17 is the neighbour of P.W.1.According to him on21.10.1998 a foul smell was emanating from the well situate in thebackyard. P.W.18 is also a neighbour of P.W.1 According to him, on22.10.1998 night, the police enquired him about the floating of a body inthe well of the backyard of P.W.1. P.W.19 was treated as a hostilewitness. P.W.20 has helped the police in retrieving the body from the wellalong with P.W.3. After completing the formalities, P.W.14 has filed thecharge sheet on 19.11.1998 against the accused.5. When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wereput to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime. Aftergoing through the materials available on record before the trial Courtplaced by the prosecution including the oral and documentary evidence, thelearned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the charge levelledagainst the accused have not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt andaccordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the findings of thelearned trial Judge, P.W8 has preferred this revision.6. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether thefindings of the learned trial Judge is full of manifest error or perversein nature to warrant any interference from this Court?7. Heard Mr.N.Raja Senthoor Pandian, learned counsel for therevision petitioner Mr.A.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for R1 andR2 and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam learned Additional Public Prosecutor for theState/R3 and considered their respective submissions.8. The Point:The revision petition has been filed against the order of acquittal. Thecase of the prosecution is that the deceased Rajalakshmi was done to deathby administering diazepam poison . Admittedly A1 and A2 are the dentists.The deceased is the wife of A1 who was a house wife. There is nooccurrence witness. The evidence of P.W.12, the post mortem doctor wouldclearly go to show that after the commission of murder, the victim would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been dropped in a well from a height of about 36 feet. The doctorhas opined that drowning is postmortem in nature. According to P.W.12,the doctor, who had conducted autopsy , diazepam is a pain killer(sedative) and that one pill may not cause death for human being.According to the Investigating Officer, the bottle containing the saidmedicine was recovered from the bureau kept in the room of the deceased.Further P.W.14 would admit that there is no evidence to show that the bodywas brought from the house of the accused to the well in a car. P.W.14 hasalso seized the vehicle a fiat car bearing Registration No.TN-09-C-2800from A1 there is no evidence to show that the said body was removed fromthe house of the A1 to the well in which the body was seen by P.W.1floating. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer Ex P17 would go toshow that the deceased was not subjected to any dowry harassment by theaccused. Further there has been no motive attributed against the accusedto commit the murder of the deceased.9. It is the case of the prosecution that since A1 was not potent tosatisfy the deceased Rajalakshmi, the accused in order to preventRajalakshmi from revealing the said fact to the world, committed thecrime. Ex P26 is the potency certificate issued by the doctorDeivasigamani. The said doctor was not examined but his report Ex P26 was marked through the Investigating Officer. The report will goto show that there is nothing to suggest that A1 is an impotent. Ex P26 cuts at the root of the prosecution case that only to prevent thedeceased Rajalakshmi from informing the world that A1 was impotent , theaccused had murdered her. The case of the prosecution is that on19.10.1998 at about 5.30p.m A1 had mixed diazepam tablet in tea and gavethe same to the deceased. The said tea cup was not also recovered from theplace of occurrence.10. The prosecution relies on the confession statement of the firstaccused on the basis of which about 16 diazepam tablets were said to berecovered from the dressing table drawer of the first accused's bed roomunder Ex P24. The learned trial Judge has rejected the alleged confessionstatement of A1 on the ground that the witness under the confessionstatement P.W.7 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The otherwitness in the confession statement viz., Mohanraj was also not examinedby the prosecution. 11. Further P.W14 would admit in the cross examination that he hasnot mentioned in the charge sheet, the place of administering the diazepamtablet to the deceased by the accused. Further there is no evidence onrecord to show that at the time of the consumption of poison by thedeceased, A1 was present in the house. P.W.14 further admitted in thecross examination that A2 is not responsible for the death of thedeceased. There is no evidence to show that the body was removed from thehouse of A1 to the well of P.W.1 in the backyard with the assistance ofthe accused.12. Since the prosecution has failed to link to the accused with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ crime, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from thecharge levelled against them. Under such circumstances, I do not find anymanifest error or perverseness in the Judgment of the trial Court towarrant any interference from this Court. The point is answeredaccordingly.13. In fine, the revision is dismissed, confirming the judgment inS.C.No.520 of 2000 on the file of the learned IV Additional SessionsJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsgTo1. XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Chennai2.-do- through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai3. IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai4.-do-through Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai5. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras7. The Inspector of Police,Anna Nagar Circle, R-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.+ 1 cc to MR.A.Padmanaban Advocate SR.NO.48374+ 1 cc to Mr. N.Rajasenthoor Pandian Advocate SR.NO.48105VRK(CO)rd 10.8.07Crl.R.C.No.1556/2003