JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Veerachami, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal.
2. The facts leading to the conviction, are as follows:-
a) The deceased Anusula Devi is the wife of the accused. P.W.2 Krishnamurthi is her son. P.W.3 Padma is her daughter. P.Ws.2 and 3 got married and they are living separately with their respective spouses in the same village. Both the accused and the deceased were living together in Door No. 8, Narayanappa Naicker Street, Chinnapuliampatti Village.
b)Though the marriage between the accused and the deceased was held 40 years back, there used to be frequent quarrel between them. Though for the past 15 years, they were residing in the same house, they used to cook and take food separately. They were also not in talking terms with each other. On noticing that so many male members used to come to the house of the deceased to meet her, the accused suspected her fidelity used to reprimand her. He invariably used to threaten the deceased that one day or the other, he would kill her and bury her body under the earth.
c) On 18.6.1998, the deceased gave “Kambampul” to his son P.W.2. Since the same was purchased by the accused for his use, the accused scolded her for having given the same to his son P.W.2 without his knowledge. The deceased immediately went to the house of her son viz., P.W.2 to complain about this. Thereafter, evening at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.2 came to the house of the deceased and questioned the accused as to why he abused the deceased. However, the accused told him that he would not abuse her in future. Thereafter, P.W.2 went back to his house. Both the deceased and the accused went to bed in the night. At about 1.30 p.m on 18/19.6.1998 midnight, the accused took a billhook and attacked the deceased by inflicting serious injuries on the entire body of the deceased, thereby caused her death. Thereafter, he cut the body into 27 pieces and buried the same inside the room after digging a pit.
d) On 19.6.1998 at 5.15 p.m., the accused went to P.W.1 Sankarapandian, Village Administrative Officer in the same village and produced M.O.1 aruval and gave extra judicial confession Ex.P.1 to P.W.1, which was reduced into writing by P.W.1. He prepared his report Ex.P.2 on the basis of Ex.P.1. Thereafter, the accused was sent to the police with his Village Assistant.
e) P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police received the documents, Exs.P.1 and P.2 from the Village Assistant accompanied by the accused and registered the case in Crime No. 274 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused was arrested.
f) P.W.16 Inspector Police, took up investigation and sent intimation to P.W.13 Tahsildar. Then, he went to the spot and prepared Ex.P.3 observation mahazar and in the meantime, P.W.13 Tahsildar, exhumed the body. P.W.16 prepared Ex.P.4 observation mahazar. He recovered M.O.8 iron Kanthalam, M.O.9 Aluminium plate, M.O.2 bloodstained sari, M.O.10 bloodstained bed-sheet, M.O.4 wooden reaper, M.O.11 bloodstained Card board piece with hair, M.O.12 bloodstained card board piece under Ex.P.5 mahazar. Then, he sent requisition to P.W.10 Doctor to come to the spot to conduct post-mortem.
g ) P.W.10, the Doctor came to the spot and conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P.6 post-mortem certificate. After arrest, the accused gave confession in pursuance of which, M.O.7 loin cloth (nfhkzj; Jzp) , which was worn by the accused at the time of occurrence was recovered. Then P.W.15, the regular Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He sent requisition for sending the material objects for chemical examination. Then, again P.W.16 took up the investigation, completed the same and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.
h) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution P.Ws 1 to 16 were examined, Exs. P.1 to 24 were filed and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked.
i) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied his complicity in the crime. He stated that he was not present in the house on 18.6.1998 and he came to house only on 20.6.1998. However, no evidence was adduced on his side.
j) The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. Tanjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and strenuously contend that the available evidence on record would not clinchingly prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime in question, when there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution has to establish its case by producing acceptable circumstantial evidence, which is lacking in this case. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is unreliable and as such, the extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.1, would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty for murder.
4. In reply to the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. E. Raja, would justify the reasonings given by the trial Court for conviction.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions urged by learned counsel on both sides and gone through the records.
6. It is true that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon “circumstantial evidence”.
7. It is a well established rule, as laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution have to be clearly established and those circumstances must form a complete chain without any missing link to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In the light of this principle, if we look at the materials available on record, it is clear that the accused alone has committed the offence of murder.
8. According to the prosecution, the accused scolded the deceased frequently for various reasons. As a matter of fact, the deceased was given in marriage to the accused 40 years back. They had two children. P.W.2 is their son and P.W.3 is their daughter. P.Ws.2 and 3 also got married and they are living separately with their respective spouse in the same village. The accused developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased, as she used to talk to male members whoever comes to her house. Therefore, there used to be frequent quarrels between them. P.W.2, the son of the accused, who is residing nearby, used to come and pacify them.
9. On 18.6.1998 evening, the deceased was scolded by the accused objecting to her handing over the “Kambampul” to his son P.W.2 without his knowledge. Since the deceased was abused in filthy language by the accused, the deceased went to the house of P.W.2 and complained the same to him. Thereafter, P.W.2 came to the house of the deceased and questioned the act of the accused and asked him not to abuse her mother in future. Accordingly, the accused told P.W.2 that he would not quarrel with her in future. This was taken place at 5.00 p.m. on 18.6.1998. This has been spoken to by P.W.2.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that the murder had taken place at about 1.30 p.m. on 18/19.6.1998 while the deceased was sleeping, the accused took M.O.1 billhook and attacked the deceased and caused her death. Thereafter, the accused cut the body of the deceased into several pieces(27) and buried the same in a pit which was dug by him in his room in the house. On 19.6.1998 at 5.15 p.m., the accused went to the house of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, which is situated very near to his house and gave extrajudicial confession. The same was recorded by P.W.1 and it is Ex.P.1. He also prepared Ex.P.2 report. Both the documents were sent to the police station through the Village Assistant. The accused was also sent along with him.
11. A reading of Ex.P.1 extrajudicial confession, would clearly show that the accused alone committed the murder of the deceased at about 1.15 A.M on 18/19.6.1998, since he thought that the deceased was always complaining against him to others and she must be finished once for all to avoid further quarrel with her.
12. P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police would state that on receipt of Ex.P.1 extra- Judicial confession and Ex.P.2 complaint at about 7.30 p.m on 19.6.1998, he registered the case for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C against the accused and sent the F.I.R and other documents to the Court, which received at 8.30 p.m. on the same day.
13. P.W.16, the in-charge Inspector of Police, took up investigation and sent requisition to P.W.13 Tahsildar. Ultimately, P.W.16 Inspector of Police and P.W.13 Tahsildar went to the spot at 9.00 p.m. and between 10.00 p.m and 11.00 p.m., the body was exhumed and thereafter, post-mortem was conducted by P.W.10 Doctor. These things would clearly indicate that the investigation commenced only on the basis of Ex.P.1. Extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer, which was received by P.W.14 on 19.6.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. along with Ex.P.2 complaint.
14. A reading of the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.14 would clearly show that the accused voluntarily went to the house of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and gave Ex.P.1. Extra-judicial confession. A reading of Ex.P.1 also would reveal that the other details about the evening incident have been mentioned, which would corroborate the evidence given by P.W.2, who speaks about the incident, which took place at 5.00 p.m. on that day.
15. Furthermore, the body was exhumed in the house of the accused only at the instance of the accused, who pointed out the place in which the body was buried. P.Ws. 2 and 3 identified the body as well as the sari of the deceased. So in the absence of any infirmity in the evidence relating to the extra-judicial confession and to the details, which is corroborated by the other materials, we cannot conclude that Ex.P.1 has not been given by the accused voluntarily to P.W.1.
16. Yet another, important circumstance is the failure on the part of the accused to explain as to how the deceased was done to death. It is the clear evidence of P.W.2 that both the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other at about 5.00 p.m. on 18.6.1998 and P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased and pacified them. Admittedly, this evidence has not been challenged. Curiously, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he simply stated that on 18.6.1998, he was not in station and he came to house only on 20.6.1998 and as such, a false case has been foisted against him.
17. When it is the case of alibi pleaded by the accused, it is settled law that the said plea has to be established by the accused. When once we accept the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that both the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other on 18.6.1998 in the house, it is for the accused to establish as to how the deceased sustained injuries, which resulted in her death. Admittedly, there is no material placed before the Court that the accused came to the house only on 20.6.1998. This statement is also falsified by the fact that the accused was arrested by P.W.14 on 19.6.1998 at 7.30 p.m itself.
18. As laid down by the Supreme Court in KALPANA MAZUMDAR VS STATE OF ORISA (2002 SCC Criminal 1417), the conviction can be based on the extra judicial confession, if the same is supported by other strong circumstances. As indicted above, there are not only other strong circumstances corroborating the extra-judicial confession, but also failure by the accused to give any explanation as to how the deceased was done to death, would strengthen the prosecution case.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.