Vediyappan ( Died) vs State Rep. By on 6 November, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Vediyappan ( Died) vs State Rep. By on 6 November, 2019

Challenging the judgment and sentence passed against the accused 1& 2 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.70 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 & 2 are as follows:

In respect of 1st Appellant/1st Accused:

The 1st appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to under go simple imprisonment for six months. The 1st appellant was also convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the offence of murder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

In respect of 2nd Appellant/2nd Accused:

The 2nd appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The 2nd appellant was further convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 109 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of six 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019 months.

The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the fine amounts already been paid by them before the trial court on 08.11.2019, the trial court also issued fine receipt bearing Nos.0036006, 0036007 dated 08.11.2019.

2. The first appellant/A1 had passed away during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands abated, so far as the first appellant is concerned. This court has proceeded to hear the appeal only in respect of the conviction of the second appellant/A2.

3. The prosecution's case is that A1 and A2 are brother and sister. A1 is the brother-in-law, and A2 is the wife of the deceased Shanmugam. A1 and A2 had decided to kill Shanmugam as A2 was unable to tolerate the abusive behaviour of the deceased. A2 had informed A1 to administer poison to her husband and do away with him, and in pursuant to that, A2 had given a sum of Rs.100/-. A1 had purchased poison meant for a Crane for a sum of Rs.5/- and a brandy bottle for a sum of Rs.70/-. Thereafter, he returned the balance of Rs.25/- to A2.

3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019

4. According to the prosecution, A1 confessed before the incharge Village Administrative Officer of Govindapuram Panchayat, who was examined as PW1 and his assistant Murugan, who was examined as PW2, that he had murdered the deceased by making him consume the poisoned brandy. The Village Administrative Officer had informed the jurisdictional Police Station, and a complaint was registered by the police, which was marked as Ex.P2.

5. According to PW1, along with the investigation officer, A1 and PW2, he visited the scene of occurrence where the deceased Shanmugam was found dead, and the poison meant for a crane and an empty brandy bottle were recovered. Based on the confession of A1, A2 was arrested, and she confessed to the crime committed by her. The admissible portion of the confession given by A1 and A2 are marked as Ex.P15 and Ex.P18, respectively.

6. The Police had recovered two Rs.10/- currency notes and a Rs.5/- currency note (M.O.3) from A2 under Recovery Mahazar marked as Ex.P5. A Brandy bottle (M.O.1) and a plastic cover with poison meant for a crane (M.O.2) were recovered under Recovery Mahazar marked as Ex.P6. 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019

7. PW1/VAO is the witness to the recovery mahazars marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. PW2 had corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW3, the brother of the deceased, PW4 the son-in-law of the deceased, and PW5 the adjacent landowner, were treated as hostile witnesses. PW6 had deposed that he was running a shop in the name and style of Sri Balaji Agro Service. A1 had come to his shop and purchased the poison for Rs.5/- and 10 days later, the Police investigated him. During the investigation, he had handed over the bill for Rs.5 to the police, which was marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 is the Xerox copy of the license issued for running the shop. PW6 has also turned hostile.

8. PW9 and PW10 are the witnesses to the Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P9. In the cross-examination, PW9 admitted that he was unaware of its contents; at the police's request, he affixed his signature. PW9 and PW10 turned hostile.

9. PW11 is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem. Ex.P11 is the request letter to conduct the post-mortem. Ex.P12 is the toxicology report dated 18.03.2013, which confirmed the presence of a poisonous substance, viz., Carbofuran, in the body of the deceased. Ex.P13 is the post mortem report. 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019

10. PW13 is the investigation officer who conducted the initial investigation, an FIR was registered in Crime No.351 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC, which was marked as Ex.P14. Rough sketches were marked as Exs.P19 and Ex.P20. The material objects were recovered pursuant to the confession statements given by A1 and A2.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the prosecution witnesses, including the witnesses to the Observation Mahazar in Ex.P9, had turned hostile. There are no incriminating materials against the appellants except for recovery of currency notes, brandy bottles and poison meant for Crane. Recovery of the said material objects cannot be considered, as the same was not recovered in the presence of any independent witnesses, as the recovery witness has turned hostile. In view of the same, the village administrative officer and his assistant, PW1 and PW2 have signed as witnesses to the recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P6. That apart, the only material available against A2 is the recovery of currency notes (M.O.3) recovered based on the confession of A2. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019

12. Per contra, Mr. S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would contend that though the recovery of material objects were made on the basis of the confession statements of the appellants, the Toxicology Report Ex.P12 would prove the presence of a poisonous substance in the body of the deceased. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. Heard Mr E.Kannadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S. Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

14. According to the prosecution, A1 surrendered before PW1, the Village Administrative Officer, and gave an extrajudicial confession, which was subsequently registered as complaint marked as Ex.P2. This culminated to an FIR marked as Ex.P14. A2 was arrested based on the extra judicial confession of A1.

7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019

15. The extrajudicial confession cannot be rejected at the outset since the accused comes forward, voluntarily gives a statement to the complainant, and requests to be subjected to the Police.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanya vs. the State of Karnataka, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255, reiterated that extra-judicial confession is weak evidence. When an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful, and it loses its importance. To rely upon an extra-judicial confession, it must be corroborated by other evidence. Corroboration of evidence means the corroboration from an independent witness whose deposition can be tested through a cross examination. The evidence of PW2, who is the assistant of the Village Administrative Officer, PW1, to whom the extra-judicial confession was given by A2, cannot be relied upon as PW2 is not independent evidence that corroborates the evidence of PW1.

17. As per the principles cited supra, in a case of circumstantial evidence, unless and until the entire chain of evidence points out the guilt as against the accused, the conviction cannot be sustained. In the case on hand, as discussed above, except the recovery of M.O.3 under Section 27 of Indian 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm ) CRL.A.No.824 of 2019 Evidence Act based on the confession statement of A2, there are no other incriminating materials against A2. It is to be noted that the prosecution has not proved the conspiracy theory between the appellants 1 and 2. In the absence of any corroboration about the extra-judicial confession and recovery of M.O.3 and in the absence of any other incriminating material against the second appellant, conviction under Sections 302 r/w. 109, 120(b) IPC cannot be sustained.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.70 of 2019, dated 06.11.2019, is set aside. The second appellant is set at liberty, if she is not wanted in any other case, and the fine amount, if any paid, shall be returned to A2. The material objects, if any, in the custody of the Trial Court shall be disposed of.

                                                                       (M.S.R.,J)    (N.S.,J)
                                                                             28.04.2025
                Index: yes/no
                Speaking order:yes/no
                Neutral Citation:yes/no
                pam
                To

                1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,


                9/11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm )
                                                                                      CRL.A.No.824 of 2019


                   Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

                2.The Inspector of Police,
                  Sigarapettai Police Station,
                  Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.351 of 2012)

                3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras

                4.The Superintendent
                  Central Prison
                  Salem




                10/11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm )
                                                                                  CRL.A.No.824 of 2019




                                                                                 M.S.RAMESH, J.
                                                                                           and
                                                                            N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

                                                                                                pam




                                                                       Pre-delivery judgment in
                                                                          CRL.A.No.824 of 2019




                                                                                        28.04.2025




                11/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:05 pm )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court