Madras High Court
Tamilsundar vs The State: Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 9 July, 2003
Author: S. Ashok Kumar
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam, S. Ashok Kumar
JUDGMENT S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. The appellant was the sole accused in S.C.No.266 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, who convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
(i) The deceased Shanthi was the second wife of the accused. The first wife of the accused, P.W.3 Kala @ Kalaiyarasi, is the elder sister of the deceased. They were residing at No.5, G.S.T. Road, Tambaram Santorium, Madras, as a tenant under P.W.1 Ponnusamy. They occupied the house a few days more than one month prior to the occurrence. The accused was a car driver and the deceased was working in MEPS company at Santorium. The accused has children through both the wives. The deceased Shanthi was demanding the accused to arrange for a separate house for her living with the accused. On 13.08.1997, at about 05.00 p.m., P.W.3 the first wife of the deceased left the house leaving the children outside, to see her friend. The accused and the deceased alone were present inside the house. P.W.1 Ponnusamy and his wife P.W.2 Govindammal saw a smoke emanating from the window of the house of the accused. They went there and found the door locked from inside. They tried to open the door, but they could not do so. P.Ws.1 and 2 and other persons, who came there, kicked the door, broke open the same and found that the accused was standing inside. The accused prevented them from going inside. When P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went inside the house, they saw the deceased Shanthi burning with flames. The accused prevented them even from extinguishing the fire on the body of the deceased. However, they extinguished the fire. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint, Ex.P.1, at 06.30 p.m.
(ii) P.W.8 Sukumaran, Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station, received Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.1287 of 1997 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death). He prepared Ex.P.11 printed First Information Report and forwarded both Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.11 to P.W.5 the Sub-Collector, Chengalpattu to conduct inquest, and the copies to the superior officials. He also sent the original complaint to the concerned Judicial Magistrate.
(iii) P.W.5 the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu, went to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu, on 14.08.1997, where the death body of the deceased was kept in mortuary. She conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and panchayathars. She recorded the statements of P.W.1 Ponnusamy, P.W.3 Kala @ kalaiarasi-the first wife of the deceased and Mukilarasi-the daughter of the accused and P.W.3. Ex.P.3 is the statement given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.4 is the statement given by P.W.3, to P.W.5 the Sub Collector. The inquest report prepared by P.W.5 the Sub Collector is Ex.P.2. She gave a requisition to conduct postmortem on the body of the deceased. She also gave a report, Ex.P.5, to P.W.7, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Madras, stating that the death was not due to any dowry demand. Ex.D.1 is the statement recorded by her from the deceased.
(iv) P.W.7 the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation, prepared Ex.P.8 observation mahazar, drew Ex.P.9 rough sketch and also arranged for taking photographs of the scene of occurrence. He seized M.O.1 plastic cane, M.O.2 lid of white plastic cane, M.O.3 home lights match box, M.O.4 scissors packet, M.O.5 pillow with white cover and M.O.6 pillow with red and yellow cover under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.10. He examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 and some others. He transferred the investigation to P.W.8 the Inspector of Police.
(v) P.W.4 Gopi took photographs of the scene of occurrence, M.O.7 series, and the negatives are M.O.8 series.
(vi) P.W.6 Dr. Saravanapava, Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Tambaram, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 1.00 p.m. on 15.08.1997 and found the following injuries:-
"Fully charred. Tongue Bitten. eye balls charred.
ON DISSECTIONS:
Thorax Ribs intact. Lungs: Black in colour contains carbon particles. Tracheal Passage: Hyoid Bone intact. Tracheal Passage contains carbon deposits. Abdomen, Liver: Black in colour. stomach contains 100 ml of liquid. Black in colour. Kidney: shrunken."
He also gave an opinion that the deceased died of hypovolumic, shock and asphyxia. The postmortem certificate issued by him is Ex.P.7.
(viii) Continuing his investigation, P.W.8 altered the case into an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.12 express report and forwarded the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate. On 12.09.1997, he examined witnesses, and on 15.09.1997, he forwarded the material objects to the Court. On 27.09.1997, he arrested the accused before the Government Hospital, Tambaram, and send him for judicial custody. On 15.10.1997, he examined P.W.6 Dr. Saravanabava, who conducted the postmortem. After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet on 14.11.1997.
3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.12 were filed and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 and D2 were filed.
4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused admitted his residing in the house of P.W.1 with his two wives including the deceased, but denied all other incriminating circumstances as not known, and also submitted that he did not give any statement before the Sub-Collector but his signature was obtained. He has further stated that his intoxication at the time of occurrence was the only mistake committed by him, that he has to save his wife and children and that the second wife was suffering from illness, which was known to her parents and they were not examined by police.
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, and has committed him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.
6. Ms. K. Sumathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the deceased has committed suicide because of stomach pain and also for the failure of the husband-accused to arrange for a separate house for their living separately.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused was found along with the deceased inside the locked house, but he has no explanation as to how the deceased caught fire, that on the other hand, he has attempted to give a false version about the reasons for the injuries sustained by the deceased and that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused.
8. We gave our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of both the sides, and also carefully scrutinized the materials on record. The fact that the accused had married P.W.3 and the deceased, and had children through them, is not in dispute. The fact that the accused and the deceased lived as a tenant in the house belonging to P.Ws.1 and 2 is also not in dispute. The only point for consideration is whether the deceased committed suicide or she died due to homicidal violence.
9. A perusal of materials on record as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and the admission of the accused himself, would show that he was in a drunken mood at the time of occurrence. As per his own statement, Ex.D.1, before P.W.5 the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu and also the evidence of D.W.1, the father of the deceased, the accused and the deceased had gone to the house of D.W.1 and received the salary of the deceased, which the deceased had given on the previous day to her parents, and thereafter, they went to the hospital of D.W.3 Dr. S. Saraswathi for treatment of the deceased and returned at 04.00 p.m. to the place of occurrence. According to the accused, he had taken liquor even before coming to his house and since he was under the influence of alcohol, he slept. The reason for going to the hospital of D.W.3, according to P.W.3-the wife of the accused and the accused, is to take treatment for the stomach pain of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was suffering from stomach pain for a long time and even D.W.2 has given treatment to the deceased for such illness. D.W.2 is a relative of the accused, who is not a qualified Doctor. According to her, she gave native treatment by applying castor oil for the deceased for her stomach pain. The evidence of D.W.2 is not worth the paper on which it is typed. D.W.2 has been examined only to show that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and the deceased had the tendency to commit suicide. Except the evidence of P.W.3, the accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2, who would state that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain, there is no other material on record to show that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain. According to the accused, he took the deceased to D.W.3 Dr. Saraswathi for treatment for stomach pain of the deceased. But, D.W.3 would state that the deceased came to the hospital for treatment on 13.08.1997 for some irritation in her genital organ at the time of urinezation. According to her, the infection was at the initial stage and it would have been cured within one day. He has also categorically stated that the deceased was not suffered due to any stomach or heart disease. She has further stated that the infection on the genital organ of the deceased would not give unbearable pain. She has also stated that the deceased was brought by a Dhobi. The prescription given by her is Ex.D.2. Therefore, the version of the accused that the deceased was suffering from sustained stomach pain for a long time and therefore, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene by herself and setting fire, is totally false.
10. Another reason for the deceased to commit suicide as suggested by the accused and P.W.3 is that the deceased was pressurizing the accused to arrange for a separate house for her living with her husband, for which the accused was not willing and being frustrated in her attempts, the deceased would have committed suicide. After all the deceased was the own sister of P.W.3, the first wife of the accused, and they were living together for several years. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the deceased might have pressurized the husband-accused to arrange for a separate house for their living. However, when questioned on this aspect (under Section 313 Cr.P.C., question No.6), the accused has categorically denied that the deceased did not pressurize him to arrange a separate house for her living with him. Therefore, both the reasons suggested on behalf of the accused as reasons for the deceased committing suicide, are not true. After all, P.W.3 is the first wife of the accused and D.W.1 is the father of P.W.3 (father-in-law of the accused), and therefore, they are interested in saving the accused and hence, such reasons are put forth before the trial Court to show that the deceased might have committed suicide. The interested testimony of P.W.3 and D.W.1 cannot be true.
11. Though there is no direct eye-witness for the occurrence, there is ample circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, which are as under:-
(i) The occurrence has taken place inside the locked house of the accused;
(ii) The presence of the accused at the time of occurrence inside the house is not denied;
(iii) The accused has not made any attempt to extinguish the fire on the body of his wife;
(iv) When P.Ws.1 and 2 and others knocked the door to open, the accused has not opened the door; The door could be opened by breaking the padlock of the door by kicks given by P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, who came to the place of occurrence;
(v) According to P.W.1, the accused prevented them from entering into the house and also from extinguishing the fire;
(vi) The accused not only failed to make any attempt to save his wife, but also did not go to the police to report the incident;
(vii) The accused has given a false version that his wife was suffering from stomach pain, for which, she was given treatment by D.W.3 and due to unbearable pain, she committed suicide.
12. We have perused M.O.7 series photographs. In one photograph, we could see that the padlock of the door has been broken to open the door, which would only confirm the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, who have no motive or enmity with the accused.
13. In Velavan v. State ((2003) M.L.J. (Crl.) 66(DB)), this Court has held as under:-
...."When, explicitly the prosecution had established the presence of the appellant with the deceased at the time of occurrence, it is for the appellant to come out with proper explanation, especially when he was also injured. The failure on his part to offer any explanation especially the presence of the third party, which is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant leads to the conclusion that except the appellant, no one is involved in the incident."
14. In this case also, the accused was found along with the deceased inside a locked house. The accused prevented P.Ws.1 and 2 from entering into the house and failed to open to the door. The other circumstances against the accused and his behaviour have been already mentioned supra. Therefore, the guilty of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.