BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/07/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1267 OF 2003 T.R.Murugeswari .. Appellant Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Kombai Police Station, Crime No.21 of 1997 .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai on 24.4.2000 in S.C.No.127 of 1998. !For Appellant .. Mr.S.K.Vellaichamy ^For Respondent .. Mr.P.N.Pandi Durai, APP :JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.E.N.PATRUDU, J.)
The legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.127 of 1998 is challenged before us.
2.The facts leading to the offence are:
The deceased Jeyakumar married one Vijayalakshmi P.W.2 and lived for some
time. Thereafter, he developed illicit intimacy with the accused, Murugeswari
and started living in a separate house, resulting P.W.2 went back to her
parents’ house.
3.While so, on 11.6.1997, on the date of the incident, P.W.2 came back to
the village in order to attend the marriage of her cousin. Knowing the same,
the deceased went there and met his first wife P.W.2 and also his child and
enquired about the family welfare. This has been disliked by the accused.
Therefore, she went there and quarrelled with the deceased as well as with
P.W.2. The accused uttered to P.W.2 that “if you want to see your husband, see
him right now from toe to head as you cannot see him alive from tomorrow
onwards”. So saying, she caught hold of the shirt of the deceased and dragged
him to her house. This happened between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 11.6.1997.
P.W.2 is the direct evidence of circumstances.
4.P.W.3, a mechanic, who is an independent witness, and residing in the
same village, also noticed the same. In the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the
accused took the deceased to her house. On the same day in the mid night, the
occurrence has occurred and deceased was killed.
5.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased sustained as many as 17
injuries and majority of them are incised injuries, including penis was cut from
the shaft of the penis 2cm from the perinial part of the remannent portion of
the shaft. The deceased died due to the injuries sustained.
6.The entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence.
7.Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the
deceased is having number of houses and there is no definite evidence that the
deceased was staying along with the accused on the date and time of the offence.
9.We do not agree with this contention.
10.The evidence of P.W.3 is convincing and it had established that the
accused and the deceased are living together on 11.6.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. and
the accused took the deceased to her house where the incident has occurred.
P.W.2 also supported this version. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased and is
living in the same village. He has deposed that P.W.2 who was staying away from
the deceased, has returned back to the village in order to attend the marriage
and the same fact was learnt by the deceased and due to natural love and
affection, the deceased went and met P.W.2, who is no other than his legally
wedded wife of the deceased, and also met his child. Therefore, the presence of
P.W.2 at the village on the date of incident is proved through the evidence of
P.W.3 as well as P.W.4 and the accused is residing with the deceased is also
proved.
11.The quarrel between the accused and the deceased was established from
the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. On the same night, the deceased was murdered in
the house of the accused. The utterance of the accused directing towards P.W.2
that if you want to see your husband, better see him right now as there will not
be any chance for him to alive from tomorrow, established her intention of
eliminating the deceased and the reason for this is that she is apprehending
that the deceased might go back with P.W.2 and her child and he may desert her.
Therefore, with the same intention, the offence has been committed.
12.Though the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence,
the fact that men may lie, but the circumstances will never lie cannot be
ignored.
13.In this case, the incident occurred in the house of the accused, where
the deceased and the accused are residing together and the evidence of P.W.3 has
clearly established that he has last seen the accused and the deceased together
and both of them went inside after quarrel and on the same night the incident
occurred and the accused did not account for the incident. Therefore, this fact
is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.
14.On the next morning, the First Information Report has been registered
by the police. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed in detail about the
other circumstances leading for the offence.
15.The most important circumstance of last seen together alive is deposed
by P.W.3 and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3 as he is an
independent witness. He is neither relative nor a friend of the deceased nor
having any enmities with the accused. Therefore, the trial court has rightly
believed the evidence of P.W.3 and it is not fair for us to disturb the finding
of the trial court.
16.The medical evidence has clearly established that the death is
homicide.
17.Therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of
the trial court either with the conviction or the sentence imposed.
18.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by
the trial court are confirmed.
19.The criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
vvk
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kombai Police Station.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.