BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04/08/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRL.A.No.665 of 1998 Rajarathinam .... Appellant vs Inspector of Police Ilayangudi Police Station Sivagangai Crime No.5 of 1997 .... Respondent Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court, Sivaganga, made in S.C.No.102 of 1997 dated 6.4.1998. !For Appellant ... Mr.N.Sundareshan ^For Respondent ... Mr.N.Pandithurai, A.P.P. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
The sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty as per the
charge by the Principal Sessions Division, Sivaganga, in S.C.No.102 of 1997, has
challenged the said judgment before this Court.
2.Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts for the disposal of this
appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased
Krishnaveni. The accused is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage took
place in the year 1990 at Srilanka, and they came over to Tamil Nadu as
refugees. The deceased and the accused had children. They were all staying at
the refugee camp at Thayamangalam. While the matter stood thus, the deceased
left the camp and went away with one Rajarathinam leaving the accused husband,
and her children, and she was living at Okkur. The advice given by the parents
and relations, did not prevail over her. On the date of occurrence namely
11.1.1997, she came to her parents’ house in order to inform that she was about
to go to a foreign country. On that day, P.W.1 accompanied by the accused, went
to the Office of the Revenue Inspector for getting the free clothes being
provided to the refugees. When he was coming, the accused got it earlier and
came home. P.W.1 along with the other witnesses saw the accused coming after
getting the clothes. P.Ws.1 and 3 also found their daughter along with the son-
in-law, the accused, coming in the opposite direction, and they were found
happy. On the impression that they have become united and have been happily
living, P.W.1 along with the witnesses crossed them. After just he walked a few
yards, he heard the distressing cry and turned back to see the accused with an
aruval attacking her indiscriminately on the head and different parts of the
body. Though P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went nearby, he ran way, and they found her dead.
Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O.),
P.W.2, and gave a narration of the incident, which was recorded by him, and the
same stands marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1, the report, was sent to Ilayangudi Police
Station along with his report, Ex.P2. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to
be registered by P.W.6, the Inspector of Police, in Crime No.5/97 under Sec.302
of I.P.C. The express First Information Report, Ex.P7, was sent to the Court.
(b) P.W.6 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection
in the presence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and
a rough sketch, Ex.P8. He recovered M.Os.1 to 7 from the place of occurrence
under a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of
Krishnaveni in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P9,
the inquest report. The Investigator examined the witnesses and recorded their
statements. Then, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the
purpose of autopsy along with a requisition, Ex.P5.
(c) P.W.5, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,
Ilayangudi, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Krishnaveni and found the following injuries:
“1) A cut injury just above the right wrist. The whole hand is hanging only
with a flap of skin exposing the cut ends of muscles fascine, tendons, nerves,
blood vessels with blood clots and bones.
2) A vertical cut injury 15 x 10 x 5 cms on the back of the middle of the right
arm – exposing the muscles, fascial, tendons, nerves and cut ends of blood
vessels with blood clots.
3) A transverse cut injury with spindle shaped 7 x 3 x 5 cms on the right side
of the middle of the neck 10 cms away from the midline.
4) A transverse spindle shaped cut injury 8 x 4 x 7 cms just below & back of
right ear.
5) A transverse spindle shaped cut injury 7 x 2 x bone depth over the right
ramus of the mandible just below the lower lip.
6) A transverse cut injury 3 x 2 x 1 cm on the middle of the back of right
forearm.
7) A vertical cut injury 6 x 2 x bone depth right parieto frontal region of the
scalp 4 cms lateral to the midline.
8) Two incised wounds (punctured) 2 x 1 x 1 cm each, one just above one just
below the medial end of left clavicle.
9) A transverse cut injury 6 x 4 x 4 cm on the left side of the neck just below
and lateral to the left angle of the mandible.
10) Two transverse cut injuries 4 x 3 x 2 cms each on the left side of the back
of the neck, one lateral to the C7 spine and another on the body of the scapula.
Exploration:
1. Right wrist is hanging only with a flap of skin exposing the cut ends of
muscles, fascial, tendons, nerves, blood vessels with blood clots and bones.
2. It enters and ends at the level of bone – exposing the cut ends of muscles,
fascial, tendons, nerves and blood vessels with blood clots.
3. Enters into the neck exposing the cut ends of muscles, fascial, tendons,
nerves, blood vessels with blood clots.
4. Enters into the neck, exposing the cut ends of muscles, fascial, nerves,
tendon, blood vessel – external jugular vein and internal carotid artery with
blood clots.
5. Right ramus of the mandible was fracture with exposing the muscles, nerves,
blood vessels.
6. Subcutaneo haematoma with blood clots seen.
7. Pericranium only injured.
8. Subcutaneous haematoma with blood clots seen.
9. It enters into the neck, piercing the neck muscles, blood vessels and
exposing the cut ends of muscles, nerves, blood vessels with blood clots –
external jugular vein and internal carotid artery.
10. Subcutaneous haematoma with blood clots seen.”
The Doctor has issued Ex.P6, the postmortem certificate, with her opinion that
the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple
injuries and injury to main blood vessels about 12 to 24 hours prior to
postmortem.
(d) Pending the investigation, on 13.1.1997 at 9.15 A.M. the accused was
arrested by the Investigating Officer. He was also sent for judicial remand.
All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the
dead body, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences
Department on a requisition given by the concerned Court which resulted in
Ex.P12, the Chemical Analyst’s report, and Ex.P13, the Serologist’s report. On
completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was
framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 6
witnesses and relied on 13 exhibits and 11 material objects. On completion of
the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence
witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either
side, found the appellant/accused guilty as per the charge and awarded the life
imprisonment. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this
Court.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while advancing his
arguments with vigour and vehemence, would submit that according to the
prosecution there were three eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4; that P.Ws.1 and 3
are the father and the mother of the deceased respectively; that naturally they
could not depose anything else except pointing to the accused; that apart from
that, number of eyewitnesses are mentioned by P.W.1, even as per Ex.P1, the
report; but, those witnesses have not been examined; that when P.W.1 gave a
report to the V.A.O., he mentioned number of eyewitnesses; but, when he came
before the Court, he has given some other names as eyewitnesses, and thus, it
would be clear that P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all.
5.Added further, the learned Counsel that in the instant case, as per the
prosecution case, the deceased left the refugee camp along with one Rajarathinam
leaving the husband who is the accused in the case, along with the children;
that P.W.1 was also informed about the vow made by the accused that he is going
to do away with his daughter; that if to be so, when the deceased came to the
house on the day of occurrence, he would not have left her alone in the house or
would have informed that the accused had got an intention to kill her, but has
not done so; that instead, he went to the Office of the Revenue Inspector for
getting free clothes, which conduct is highly doubtful; that apart from that,
the accused had no motive at all; that even as per the evidence of the
Investigator, he did not try to secure the said Rajarathinam, the paramour of
the deceased; that the explanation tendered by the Investigator for not securing
him or examining him, was not satisfactory; that besides that, according to the
Doctor, the deceased would have died about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy; and
that if to be so, the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution,
at about 5.15 P.M., and the autopsy was conducted at 8.00 A.M. on the next day,
and thus, the death would have occurred even much earlier than one put forth by
the prosecution.
6.The learned Counsel would also submit that even assuming that the
occurrence has taken place, just 15 minutes would be suffice to report the
matter to the police; but, instead, P.W.1 has gone to the Office of the V.A.O.
and gave a report, Ex.P1; that P.W.2, the V.A.O., prepared his report, Ex.P2,
and then, sent the same to the Police Station through his menial; that
thereafter, the case came to be registered at about 8.00 P.M.; that there has
been a delay of nearly more than 3 hours; that this would also tell upon the
prosecution case; that the lower Court without consideration of these aspects of
the matter put forth by the defence, or appreciation of the same, has found the
accused guilty, and hence, he is entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this
Court.
7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contentions.
8.The prosecution in the instant case, brought forth sufficient evidence
to record that one Krishnaveni, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3, died out of
homicidal violence. In this regard, the prosecution not only relied on the
direct evidence through P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, but also on the medical evidence
through P.W.5, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, and the medical opinion
through her certificate was also placed before the Court. It was also not a
fact disputed by the appellant/accused either before the trial Court or before
this Court as to the cause of death. Thus, it could be safely recorded that
Krishnaveni died on account of homicidal violence.
9.The next question that arises for consideration, would be whether the
prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case, the prosecution to its advantage had the direct evidence
which was adduced through P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. True it is, P.Ws.1 and 3 were
closely related to the deceased; but, that may not be a reason to reject their
testimony, unless and until it is found to be false or it can be rejected, if it
does not stand the test of careful scrutiny. Not only P.Ws.1 and 3 have been
examined, but also P.W.4, who is an independent witness, has been examined.
From the evidence, it would be quite clear that the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3
left her husband, the accused herein, and also her children, with one
Rajarathinam from the refugee camp at Thayamangalam, and was staying with him at
Okkur. The evidence would further go to show that on the date of occurrence,
she came over there to inform to the parents that she was about to leave for a
foreign country; that at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 accompanied by others and also
the accused, went over to the Office of the Revenue Inspector to get free
clothes; that when he was coming back, he found the accused and the deceased
coming in the opposite direction and chatting happily; that he was under the
impression that they have united; that when they crossed him, he heard the
distressing cry; and that at that time, the accused attacked her with an aruval.
It remains to be stated that the occurrence was witnessed not only by the
parents, who are P.Ws.1 and 3, but also by an independent witness examined as
P..W.4. They witnessed the occurrence, that too in the day light, and
immediately, the matter was reported to the V.A.O. The V.A.O. in turn, brought
to the notice of the police the same, and then, a case came to be registered
within a few hours. The F.I.R. has also reached the Judicial Magistrate
concerned. Now, at this juncture, it has to be pointed out that there is no
delay noticed not only in the registration of the case or in the F.I.R. reaching
the Court. Apart from that, no embellishment or improvement can be possible in
the instant case, because P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 have witnessed the occurrence, in
which the accused attacked the deceased with the aruval in the place of
occurrence. The medical evidence is also in full corroboration of the ocular
testimony. That apart, from the place of occurrence, the weapon of crime namely
aruval, has been recovered. It was also subjected to chemical analysis, and
human blood is also found to be present.
10.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant
that there was only 15 minutes necessary to go to the Police Station; but, P.W.1
had gone to the Office of the V.A.O. and gave a report has got to be
discountenanced for the simple reason that P.W.1 is a refugee; that he is more
connected to the Revenue Department, and therefore, he thought it fit to
immediately report the matter to the V.A.O., who in turn, has brought to the
notice of the police. Further, the contention put forth by the appellant’s side
that there were number of eyewitnesses; but, they have not been examined cannot
also be accepted since P.Ws.1 and 3 are the parents, and P.W.4 is an independent
witness. While the evidence is available from the parents who have seen the
occurrence, and their evidence has also inspired the confidence of the Court,
the prosecution to its advantage had the evidence of one independent witness
namely P.W.4. Under the circumstances, such a comment made by the defence at
this stage, has got to be discarded.
11.The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that death
would have been caused earlier and Rajarathinam, the paramour of the deceased,
would have done it do not carry merit. According to the Investigator, the said
Rajarathinam was neither secured nor examined, since there was no necessity that
arose in the case. From the available materials, it would be quite clear that
there were eyewitnesses who have witnessed the occurrence, when the accused
attacked the deceased. If to be so, there was no doubt in the mind of the
police to be entertained, to secure anybody else for the purpose of examination
or interrogation in the particular case. In view of the above, the non-
examination of the said Rajarathinam, the alleged paramour of the lady, has in
no way affected the truth of the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has
placed necessary materials through the direct evidence which is fully supported
by the medical evidence.
12.Coming to the question as to the nature of the act of the accused, the
Court is of the considered opinion that the act cannot, but be termed only as
murder. From the evidence of P.W.3, the mother of the deceased, that the
accused took his wife, the deceased, stating that she was to sign a paper in the
Revenue Inspector’s Office, and so stating, he took her from the house; and that
when they were going, he attacked her with an aruval, it would be clear that at
the time of the attack, they were in a public place. It would also be crystal
clear that he took an aruval from the waist and attacked her, and thus, it was a
pre-planned act, which would attract the penal provisions of murder. The lower
Court was perfectly correct in recording a conviction for murder and sentencing
him to life imprisonment, which, in the opinion of this Court, does not require
any interference.
13.In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and accordingly, it is
dismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower Court. It is reported that the
appellant/accused is on bail. Hence, the Sessions Judge shall take steps to
commit him to prison to undergo the sentence.
To:
1)The Principal Sessions Judge
Sivaganga
2)The Inspector of Police
Ilayangudi Police Station
Sivagangai
Crime No.5 of 1997
3)The Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court