Madras High Court
Muthusamy vs State on 16 November, 2006
Author: A.C. Arumuga Perumal Adityan
Bench: A.C. Arumuga Perumal Adityan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 80 of 2005 + + + + + Muthusamy ..Appellant Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode District, (Crime No. 287/2003) ..Respondent + + + + + Prayer: Criminal Appeal against the order passed in S.C. No. 224 of 2004 dated 22.12.2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Erode Division at Erode. * * * * * For Appellant : Mr.V.K. Muthusamy, Sr. Counsel for Mr.M.M. Sundresh For Respondent : Mr.N.R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor * * * * * J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Balasubramanian,J.) The appellant in this appeal has been convicted in S.C. No. 224 of 2004 on the file of Court of Sessions, Erode under Sections 302, 201 and 203 I.P.C. for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.5000/- carrying a default sentence; 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- carrying a default sentence and fine of Rs.2000/- carrying a default sentence respectively. Hence, he is before this Court in this appeal. Heard Mr.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 25.11.2003 and 26.11.2003, to be precise, between 12 in the night and 1.15a.m., the accused murdered his wife by smothering and then, with a view to screen the offence, placed a pre-mixed pesticide ( a poison) in a tumbler by the side of the dead body and informed everyone that his wife died by consuming poison and therefore, punishable under the sections referred to earlier. To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 19 besides marking Exs-P1 to P29 and M.O.s 1 to 16. The defence examined on their side one witness as D.W.1 and marked two exhibits as D1 and D2. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the crime. P.W.2 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased. P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased and incidentally, the maternal uncle of P.W.2. P.W.1, in his evidence, would state that the accused had developed illicit intimacy with another lady by name, Vasanthi; Parvathi, since deceased, objected to the said affair, the accused was torturing her; despite the birth of P.W.2, the accused did not sever his connection with the said lady; Parvathi conceived for the second time; the mistress of the accused was often visiting the house and quarrels arose between the accused and the deceased; the accused kicked his wife on the stomach and some complications followed, as a result of which, Parvathi underwent an abortion in the hospital. According to P.W.1, the accused was widely proclaiming that he would continue to live only with his mistress and in the context of the above materials, Parvathi had gone to the Police Station to give a complaint. Parvathi came to know that the accused is attempting to sell his property for constructing a house for his mistress. Therefore, Parvathi filed O.S. No. 485/98 against the accused claiming partition of her daughter's share namely, P.W.2's share and for her maintenance. The accused had also initiated proceedings in the Civil Court at Erode namely, O.P. No. 1/99 aginst Parvathi seeking divorce. In the proceedings initiated by Parvathi, a decree was passed partitioning the property into two halves, one of which is to be given to P.W.2 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as maintenance to P.W.2. The divorce proceedings initiated by the accused was dismissed. The accused was insisting that Parvathi should give a receipt evidencing complete settlement of all her claims and only then, he would take her to his place. The accused was also insisting that Parvathi should release all the rights in the two acres of land, which was granted to P.W.2 by the Civil Court. Parvathi was refusing to give such a release deed. However, she released, in writing, all her other rights. Accordingly, the accused took Parvathi to his house. Even thereafter, it appears that the accused was not treating Parvathi well. Parvathi had brought it to the notice of her relatives. Accordingly, Nagarajan, who was so informed, went to the house of the accused and took Parvathi and her daughter and left them in her mother's house. The accused promising to treat them well, took his wife and P.W.2 back to his house. At about 9p.m. On 20.11.2003, Parvathi called P.W.1 over telephone and told him that her husband is assaulting her and he appears to be more violent then he was before. Parvathi also told P.W.1 at that time that the accused had made an open declaration that one day or the other, he would finish her off and in that context, Parvathi requested P.W.1 to come home and take her. P.W.1 assured Parvathi that, as he could not get leave, he would send his mother within a week. At 8.30a.m. on 26.11.2003, P.W.1 reached his village and at that time, there was a talk that Parvathi had died by consuming poison. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused along with relatives and reached there at about 9.30a.m. P.W.1 observed the dead body of his sister, kept in the outer room on a bench. Her tongue was protruding and contusions were also seen in the neck and chest. He went and observed the scene where his sister was found dead and in that room, he noticed blood-stains. Close to the place, where Parvathi's dead body was found lying in the room, P.W.1 found a container containing "selpas", insecticide and pre-mixed insecticide in a tumbler and another tumbler. P.W.1 suspected that his sister would not have consumed poison, but somebody else would have administered poison to her. Accordingly, taking his relatives, he went to the Police Station at about 11a.m. And gave a complaint. Ex-P1 is the said complaint. P.W.1 was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. P.W.18 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating Police Station. At 11a.m., on receiving the complaint, he registered it as Ex-P1 in Police Station Crime No. 287/2003 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex-P27 is the printed First Information Report. He sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. At 11.40a.m., the Inspector of Police arrived at the Police Station and collected the express records. P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer. At 11.40a.m. On 26.11.2003, he collected the material records and commenced investigation. He went to the crime scene. At 11.50a.m., in the presence of P.W.13 and another, he prepared Ex-P6, the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch, Ex-P28. Through P.W.14, he caused the crime scene to be photographed. M.O.7 series and M.O.8 series are the photographs and the negatives. P.W.19 recovered M.O.1 from the crime scene in the presence of P.W.13 and another. From the crime scene, at 12.30p.m., in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered M.O.s 2 to 6 under Ex-P8. From 12.35p.m. till 3.30p.m. on that day, P.W.19 conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex-P29, the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.W.s 1 to 3, 5 and others by recording their statements. Then, he sent the dead body through P.W.16 with a requisition to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.13 witnessed the preparation of Ex-P6, the Observation Mahazar and the recovery of various articles under Ex-P7 and Ex-P8. P.W.16 accompanied the dead body to the hospital with Ex-P2 requisition for postmortem. After postmortem, he removed M.Os. 14 to 16 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer along with his special report Ex-P14.
4. P.W.6 is the duty doctor, who did postmortem on the dead body on receipt of Ex-P2 and the dead body. She commenced postmortem at 4.15p.m. on 26.11.2003. During postmortem, she found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex-P5, the postmortem report. The symptoms noted therein are as hereunder:
"Appearances found at the postmortem:-
The body of a female lying on its back, well nourished, eyes closed, teeth complete, face is swollen. Lips and nails are cyanosed. Tongue is swollen, cyanosed, protruded and bitten in between the teeth. Multiple abrasions and bruises of varying sizes seen around the mouth. Abrasions about 1cm x 1cm x skin deep seen on the inner aspect of lower lip. Chest wall is congested, ecchymosed and veins are prominent. The ecchymosis is seen around the neck and chest in anterior aspect starting from chin upto upper end of sternum anteriorly, and laterally upto both shoulders. Three nail marks seen on upper and inner aspect of right breast. On opening the lids, eye balls are prominent, congested and sub-conjunctival haemorrage present in both eyes. Anal spinaters relaxed.
On D/D. Head and Neck:
Skull normal, no fracture of bones. Brain vessels are congested and weigh about 1200 gms. Subcutaneous haemorrage is present over neck. Hyoid bone intact.
Thorax: Ribs normal no fracture. Lungs congested, odematous, on cut section oozes out frothy blood stained fluid. Right lung weight 300 gms, left lung 280 gms.
Heart: Chambers contain dark coloured blood, weight 200 gms, Liver: Congested weighs about 1650 gms.
Stomach: Contains partially digested food particle. Mucosa appears normal. Intestines distended with gas. Kidneys are congested and both kidneys weighs about 140 gms.
Uterus and Adnexa: Appears normal, Utrine cavity empty.
Vagina: Watery like discharge present, Smear taken and preserved. Spleen congested weight 110 gms. Spinal column is intact. Upper and lower limbs no fracture."
The doctor opined that Parvathi would have died 14 to 24 hours prior to autopsy as a result of asphyxia due to smothering. Ex-P4 is the report on hyoid bone. It shows that the bone was intact. Ex-P3 is the report on viscera, which shows that neither Aluminium Phosphide nor any other poison was detected in the viscera.
5. P.W.19 examined P.W.8 and others by recording their statements. On prior information, he arrested the accused at 4.30a.m. on 28.11.2003 in the presence of P.W.15 and another near Vengambur Varadaraja Perumal Temple and P.W.15 identified him. On examination, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex-P9. Pursuant to Ex-P9, the accused produced a motor-cycle M.O.9, which he had parked a little away from the temple. It was recovered under Ex-P10 attested by the same witnesses. Subsequent to that, at 6.30a.m., the accused took the police party and the witnesses to the garden of one Palaniappa Gounder from where he produced M.O.s 10 and 11, kept behind hayrick, under Ex-P11. Then the accused took the police party and the witnesses to his house and from the hayrick, he produced M.O.12, pillow cover, which was recovered under Ex-P12. Then the accused produced M.O.13 from his house, which was recovered under Ex-P13. P.W.15 had given evidence regarding the arrest of the accused; his examination; recording his statement and recovery of various objects as spoken to by P.W.19. M.O.13 was recovered under a search list and Ex-P13 is the search list. P.W.19 sent the accused for judicial remand and the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.
6. P.W.17 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the viscera to be sent for chemical examination. The request made with regard thereto is Ex-P15. The viscera was sent to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court's letter Ex-P16. Ex-P17 is the requisition to send the hyoid bone for examination and it was sent to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court's letter Ex-P18. Since the hyoid bone was returned, a further request was given by the Inspector of Police under Ex-P19 to send it to another hospital. Accordingly, the hyoid bone was sent as an enclosure to Court's letter Ex-P20 to another hospital. Ex-P21 is the requisition given by the Inspector of Police to send the case properties for chemical examination. As an enclosure to Court's letter Ex-P22, they were sent to the laboratory. Exs-P23 and P24 are Chemical Examiner's reports while Exs-P25 and P26 are Serologist's reports. P.W.19 gave a requisition to the Court on 30.11.2003 to examine P.W.s 1 to 3 and 5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He examined P.Ws. 11 and 12 by recording their statements. He examined P.W.6 and collected and postmortem report. He examined P.W.s 14 and 16 by recording their statements.
7. P.W.2 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased. She deposed about her father's illicit affair with another lady; her mother and uncle objecting to it resulting in a police complaint; the litigation started by her mother and the result thereof; the accused threatening her mother with dire consequences and the attitude of the accused towards his wife as spoken to by P.W.1. In other words, P.W.2 had summarised the sufferings of her mother at the hands of the accused. She would then state that on 25.11.2003, she came to know that her grandmother had come and therefore, she and her mother, since deceased, told the accused that they want to go and see the grandmother. According to her, the accused told P.W.2 that she can go to her grandmother's house from school directly and Parvathi, since deceased, would join her in the evening. Accordingly, P.W.2 packed up her clothes while she left for school and from school, she went to her grandmother's place. There, she found that her mother had not come. Therefore, she telephoned to her house at about 5.15p.m. on that day and asked her mother as to why she had not come. P.W.2 also asked her whether her father had beaten her extensively and whether her mother needs her presence in the house. However, Parvathi, since deceased told P.W.2 that P.W.2's father (accused) persuaded her to stay back in the house itself stating that as his younger brother is coming only on the next day, lot of matter has to be talked. P.W.2 would state that her mother Parvathi told her that she would see her on the next day. Then, on coming to know that her mother is dead, she went and observed the dead body. She would state that as she was weeping on seeing her mother's dead body, she noticed her father (accused) making a number of telephone calls and that the accused did not even come and say a word to her. Parvathi is the niece of P.W.3. P.W.3 knew that the accused was having an affair with another lady and in that context, there was problem between him and Parvathi, since deceased. P.W.3 advised the accused not to continue his affair with the other lady for which the accused pleaded innocence. Thereafter, P.W.3 used to visit Parvathi and she used to complaint that in the background of the illicit affair, the accused was often assaulting her. However, P.W.3 would admit that he had not seen any such assault and he knew it only from Parvathi. At about 8.30a.m. or 9a.m. On 26.11.2003, P.W.3 came to know that Parvathi is dead. P.W.3 went to the house of Parvathi and found the dead body. He found Parvathi's tongue protruding with slight bleeding. P.W.3 saw the accused sitting outside the house and making telephone calls. When P.W.3 asked the accused as to what happened, the accused told him that Parvathi died consuming "selpas" insecticide. However, P.W.3 stated that as Parvathi is a strong-willed person, she would not have done like that. But the accused, insisted that Parvathi had committed suicide by consuming "selpas". PW.3 again did not agree that Parvathi would have done like that. Parvathi, when alive, used to tell P.W.3 that the accused had been treating her very badly in the context of the pending litigation pestering Parvathi to withdraw those proceedings.
8. P.W.4 is a resident of Kolathupalayam and he is an agriculturist by profession. On 25.11.2003, after transporting the agricultural produce to Kangeyam, he was returning to his village via Sivagiri. Enroute, one of the tyres got deflated. As the driver was attending to it, P.W.4 was standing on the road. At that time, he saw the accused coming in his motor-cycle from Sivagiri side. P.W.4 stopped him and the accused told P.W.4 that he had gone to Muthaiyanvalasu and returning from there. P.W.4 asked him whether the problem between him and his wife continues and the accused told him that with that day, the problem would be solved and then the accused left in his motor-cycle towards Kodumudi. P.W.4 came to know on the next day that the accused had murdered his wife. P.W.4 was examined by the Police on 28.11.2003. P.W.5 knows the accused and the deceased. P.W. 5, with his cousin, are doing telephone service i.e, installation of telephones and attending to repairs. On 25.11.2003, after attending to their professional work, when P.W.5 was coming in his Maruti car, around 1.15a.m. in the morning, near Solakkalipalayam, he noticed the accused emerging from the side lane of his house in his motor-cycle. Since the accused was known to P.W.5, P.W.5 questioned about his welfare and the accused left saying that there is nothing to say. P.W.5 knew that there was a family problem between the accused and his wife and therefore, he did not take serious note of the accused driving away in a hurry. The next day morning, P.W.5 came to know that Parvathi died. Then P.W.5 along with P.W.1 and others wen to the village where the accused and the deceased were living. On seeing them, the accused put his head down and he did not lift his head at all to see any of them. When P.W.5 was enquired as to what happened, the reason given was Parvathi died by consuming insecticide. P.W.5 noticed contusions on Parvathi's nose, below the eye and neck. He also found Parvathi bleeding through the mouth. P.W.5 was examined by the Police. P.W.7 examined to prove that the accused called him to his house at 5.30a.m. on 26.11.2003 to attend to the defect in his house telephone and also to prove that the accused was shouting that his wife had died by consuming poison turned hostile. P.W.8 examined to prove Parvathi was assaulted and the mistress of the accused requested this witness to chase Parvathi out of the house also turned hostile.
9. P.W.9 is the in-charge Village Administrative Officer of Channasamudram. His wife told him that she received information from Solakkalipalayam that the house where Parvathi was living was found bolted from inside and it could not be opened. Accordingly, P.W.9 reached Solakkalipalayam. He noticed about 100 persons outside the house of Parvathi. P.W.13 and others were also among the crowd. P.W.9 found that the door of the house in question was bolted from inside. It was suggested that the bolt/latch must be removed. The first door of the house was found closed. P.W.9 pushed it and it opened. There was another door inside, which was found bolted from inside. A person entered the house through the roof tile and opened the door from inside. On entering the room, P.W.9 found Parvathi lying dead. P.W.10 examined to prove that the accused stayed with her in her house on the night of 25.11.2003 and left early turned hostile. However, she would state, before she came to be treated as hostile, that the accused came to her house at 7p.m. and after taking dinner, he stayed there. She would also state that at 5a.m., when she woke up, she found the accused sleeping and then only the accused left. P.W.11 examined to prove that Vasanthi, the mistress of the accused used to give him, not only her clothes, but also the clothes of the accused, for washing turned hostile. P.W.12 examined to prove that he entered the house by removing the tile and opening the door from inside turned hostile. P.W.13 is the Village Administrative Officer of Channasamudram. At 8 a.m. on 26.11.2003, when he was in his office, P.W.9 and another came and called him stating that Parvathi, wife of Muthusamy, died by consuming poison and therefore, he must come and see. P.W.13 also went to the house where he found the door bolted from inside. There was a crowd outside. Those already present, broke open the front door. On entering, they found the door of the room on the western side also found bolted from inside. The accused, who was also there, requested P.W.12 to go over the roof and find out what had happened. P.W.12 went over the roof and when he saw through the glass tile, he found Parvathi lying dead. P.W.12 accordingly informed everyone about it. The entire crowd wanted P.W.12 to enter the room by removing the roof tile and then open the door. Accordingly, P.W.12 entered the room by opening a tile in the roof and then opened the door. P.W.13, the accused, P.W.9 and others went inside the room to find Parvathi lying face down dead. The accused started crying that his wife, whom he had maintained very nicely had died. Over the window in the room, there was a tumbler containing pre-mixed solution, a container and a bottle containing Aluminium Phosphide 56 insecticide. When P.W.13 decided to inform the Police, only one phone was available and the accused and others were continuously talking. Therefore, P.W.13 could not inform. At 9a.m., P.W.1 came to the village and observed the dead body and stating that he is having a suspicion in the death of his sister, proceeded to the Police Station to give a complaint. At 11.45a.m., the Police arrived at the crime scene and then prepared the necessary records, which this witness witnessed about which we have already referred to. P.W.19 continued his investigation by examining witnesses. After completing the legal formalities and the investigation, P.W.19 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 24.2.2004 for the offences referred to earlier.
10. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials available against him, he admitted his relationship with the deceased and P.W.2; he also admitted that a decree was passed in favour of his daughter in the partition suit; he would state that the divorce proceedings initiated by him were not dismissed, but it was compromised. All other materials and statements made by the witnesses were denied by him. At the time of questioning, he filed a detailed written statement. In that statement, he denied the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 15 stating that they are speaking falsehood and that P.W.2 is an obliging witness. He denied the recovery of M.O.s 9 to 13, as spoken to by the prosecution, as false. He denied his alleged affair with another lady. He would state that his wife Parvathi was having a cordial relationship with the other lady. As far as the occurrence proper is concerned, he had taken a stand, which we summarise hereunder:
"On the morning of 25.11.2003, Parvathi and P.W.2 wanted to visit Saraswathi, mother of Parvathi in her place; I told them to go; I went to Muthianvalasu to offer condolence; under the impression that Parvathi and P.W.2 would have gone to see Saraswathi (mother of Parvathi), I stayed that night at Muthianvalasu itself; at 7a.m. On 26.11.2003, I returned to my house where I found the door bolted from inside and could not be opened; I shouted and therefore, many people came and tried to enter the room, but could not; the reason, the windows on the north and west were also closed; one among the crowd climbed the wall of 10 feet to open the tile and looking down, he shouted that my wife is lying dead in the cot; then, he opened the door from inside; many entered the house; I cried; I informed my father-in-law and others over telephone and within a short time, all of them came; they talked among themselves and with the help of P.W.1, they decided to give a complaint; the Police came and took me to the Police Station and I was kept there for two days; the gold chain and thali worn by my wife were not available; her saree was found removed; I found abrasions on her mouth and chest; somebody, for the purpose of committing robbery of the jewels or for satisfying their sexual lust, would have entered the house from the ceiling knowing that I was not there, picked up a quarrel and could have killed my wife; this is my opinion; the Police have produced M.O.s 10 and 11 before this Court stating that they are blood-stained; two days prior to the 27.11.2003, when I started my motor-cycle, I received an injury on my right leg; the blood that came from that injury fell on my clothes and therefore, I kept those clothes in my house; the Police have taken those clothes for using it against me in this case; my blood group is "O"; I am producing documentary evidence in regard thereto; M.O.12, the pillow cover is not the cover for M.O.13 and M.O.13, the pillow was under the head of the dead body."
11. Mr.V.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the entire prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence. To succeed in such a case, the prosecution must establish several circumstances constituting a chain unerringly pointing out to the guilt of the accused alone. Such type of evidence is totally wanting in this case. Excepting the circumstance that the accused is the husband of the deceased in this case and that the dead body was found in his house, there are no other compelling circumstance to show that the accused alone is guilty of murdering his wife. On the other hand, there are several circumstances available on record, which displaces such hypothesis namely, the accused alone is guilty. Those circumstances, in favour of the accused, according to the learned senior counsel, are the evidence of P.W.10, which shows that the accused was staying in her house in a different place throughout the night of 25.11.2003 and he left that place only on 26.11.2003; the accused was present at all times from the morning of 26.11.2003 near his house where his wife was found dead and such presence continued even during inquest, which was held between 12.35p.m. and 3.30p.m. on that day. If really, the accused was guilty, then, he would not have stayed in the place of occurrence itself for such a long time. The whole village had come to know that the wife of the accused had died under unnatural circumstances. If P.W.s 4 and 5 had first seen the accused moving towards his village and then moving away from the village, then, they would have definitely highlighted this aspect at the earliest point of time , not only to the villagers, but also to the investigating officer. P.W.4 came to be examined for the first time only on 28.11.2003 and therefore, his evidence must be eliminated from consideration. Though P.W.5 was examined during inquest, yet, by the time the inquest was conducted, the Police had come to know that the victim died under unnatural circumstances and therefore, it is possible for the Police to fabricate evidence by bringing forth P.W.5 to speak to a fact namely, that he saw the accused moving away from the side lane of his house on the night of 25.11.2003/26.11.2003, to be precise, at 01.15 hours. The strongest point in favour of the accused is the evidence let in by the prosecution show that not only the room where the dead body was found, but also the house within which the room was located were found bolted from inside and they were later broke open when the villagers arrived and this totally eliminates the presence of any person inside the house including the accused so as to commit the crime. There is evidence to show that access into the room as well as into the house could be gained only when the doors were broke open by the villagers after they arrived and this circumstance can be taken into account to dislodge the hypothesis, if any, that can be drawn against the accused on the materials placed by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.s 4 and 5 that they came across the accused when he was on his way to his village and when he was found going away from the village is so very artificial namely, the meeting point is stated to be at the middle of the night, which this Court can easily disbelieve. The evidence of P.W. 2 nowhere takes the case of the prosecution to its logical end. Therefore, his submission is, on the evidence available, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused and his guilt alone is established. If it is so, the conviction must be set aside.
12. Opposing these points, Mr.N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that the Observation Mahazar, namely, Ex-P6, shows that a person, after committing the murder, has enough access to go out of the house, not through the locked door, but through the other means available. Therefore, from the mere evidence that the doors were broke open to gain entry into the room, would not indicate that the accused is not guilty of the offence. There is material to show that all is not well in the married life of the deceased with the accused and therefore, the accused, who was always claiming an upper hand, had enough motive to kill his wife. The investigating agency was not aware that the accused may set up a plea of alibi as a defence. Therefore, to say that P.W.5 was introduced during inquest to defeat the possible defence of an alibi that may be taken by the accused later on, is far-fetched. The examination of P.W.5 during inquest, at which point of time, he disclosed that he saw the accused moving away from the side lane near his house on the fateful night definitely sounds credible. P.W.10 turned hostile and therefore, her evidence that the accused stayed with her throughout the night of 25.11.2003 cannot be looked into at all. It is all the more so since she is interested to protect the accused. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that the accused knew that his wife is not going out of the village on that night. The conduct the accused, at all relevant times, indicate an abnormal conduct and this can be taken into account against the accused in a case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the argument is having an overall view of the motive; the presence of the victim in the house on the fateful night; P.W.10 turning hostile; P.Ws. 4 and 5 speaking to the forward and return movement of the accused to and from his house on the fateful night and the abnormal conduct of the accused, this Court can safely conclude that the accused and the accused alone is guilty and not anybody else.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, we proceed to analyse the entire materials. We are fully aware of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases stating that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all circumstances, which, as a chain, should indicate to the guilt of the accused alone and not to any other hypothesis. If any other hypothesis is possible, then, the circumstances placed by the prosecution must fail. Motive, in a case of circumstantial evidence, would have definite relevance, when the Court is called upon to decide a case based on circumstantial evidence. Having the above principles in our mind, we analysed the materials, since, admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the crime and the entire prosecution case rests upon only circumstantial evidence. Before we proceed to find out whether the prosecution had established their case or not, we went through the evidence of P.W.6, the doctor, who did postmortem and the postmortem report, Ex-P5. We have already referred to the medical evidence in the earlier portion of our judgment and the said evidence establishes beyond doubt that Parvathi, wife of the accused, was done to death. The question is, as already noted, whether the prosecution had established that the murder was committed only by the accused or by anybody else. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., did not dispute the fact that during the relevant time, he was living in the same house with his wife, since deceased. Even otherwise, in normal way of life, husband and wife live together in the same house. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution had established that the accused and Parvathi, his wife, were living in the same house and in that house only, Parvathi was found dead due to homicidal violence. P.W.2 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased. P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. P.W.1's evidence gives elaborate details about the married life of his sister with the accused and the sufferings to which she was subjected to during such wed-lock. Her suffering was in the context of the accused having an illicit intimacy with another lady and persisting in continuing that affair. We are not restating here what P.W.1 spoke. Suffice it to say that his evidence undoubtedly establishes that Parvathi was all the time at the receiving end from her husband. This evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the oral evidence of P.W.2. It may be noticed that Parvathi moved the Civil Court for getting a share for her daughter P.W.2 in the property held by her husband as well as for maintenance to P.W.2 and in fact, she succeeded in getting a decree. The accused, when he was questioned, would admit that, he filed an appeal against the said decree. It is on record that the accused moved the Family Court to have his marriage with Parvathi brought to an end by a decree of divorce. According to the prosecution, that petition was dismissed. However, the accused would state when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that it was decided on a compromise. There is evidence to show that when Parvathi was in the family way for the second time, after the birth of P.W.2, a quarrel arose resulting in the accused kicking on her stomach leading to an abortion and in that regard, a police complaint was given against the accused. Therefore, we only state, at this stage that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 establish beyond doubt that Parvathi was not at all happy in her married life with the accused. Though she was living away on account of such quarrel, just a couple of months or so before the occurrence, the accused, promising a clean, safe and comfortable life, persuaded the kith and kin of Parvathi to send her back. P.W.2's evidence establishes beyond doubt that her father (accused) and her mother (deceased) were living together and on the occurrence day also, they were together.
14. As noted earlier, there is no direct evidence to the crime. Admittedly, P.W.2 had gone to her grandmother's house on that fateful day and she came to know about her mother's death only on the next day. P.W.1, the younger brother of the deceased, was working in Bangalore. His evidence shows that atleast a week before that day, Parvathi telephoned him and stated that she is unable to bear the assault from her husband any more and therefore, requested him to come and take her. He would also state that he told her that as he could not get leave, he would send his mother. According to him, he reached his village at about 8.30a.m. on 26.11.2003 and at that time, he came to know from his relatives that his sister (Parvathi) died in her husband's house by consuming poison, which made him to rush to the place, which he reached at 9.30a.m. He noticed some external injuries and found an insecticide under the trade name "selpas" in a container by the side of the dead body and a pre-mixed solution of insecticide in a tumbler nearby. Therefore, suspecting foul play, he lodged a complaint with the Police and that is how the law was set on motion. So, P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the crime. However, his evidence is relevant only to the extent of the ill-treatment to which Parvathi was subjected to by her husband. P.W.2 in her evidence would state that on 25.11.2003, she and her mother, since deceased, wanted permission from the accused to visit her grandmother, who was living in a different place and on that morning, the accused told P.W.2 that from school, she can straightaway go to her grandmother's house and her mother, since deceased, would leave in the afternoon. Accordingly, P.W.2, packing her clothes for her stay in her grandmother's house, left the house in the morning on her way to the school and from school, she reached her grandmother's house. There, she found that her mother had not yet come. Therefore, she made a telephone call to her mother. The Observation Mahazar also shows that there was a telephone in the house of the accused and evidence also shows that the accused was making calls on the morning of 26.11.2003. P.W.2 would state that when she called her mother at 5.15p.m. on 25.11.2003 as to why she had not come to her (P.W.2) grandmother's house and the deceased is shown to have told her that as requested by her husband (accused), she is staying there itself and promised to come on the next day. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that Parvathi was alive in the morning when P.W.2 left for school and she was also alive at 5.15p.m. on that evening. P.W.2 would then state that on the next day morning, when she came to know that her mother is dead, she came to her house to observe her mother dead. P.W.3's evidence shows that at about 8.30 or 9a.m. On 26.11.2003, he was informed that Parvathi is dead and accordingly, he went to the house to find not only the dead body of Parvathi, but also the accused making telephone calls. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that her mother, who was alive in the morning, when she left for school, leaving her father and mother and who was also alive at 5.15p.m. on the same day, namely, 25.11.2003, was found dead on the morning of 26.11.2003 and at the time, when P.W.3 reached the house, he found the accused there.
15. The next set of evidence available is that of the evidence of P.W.s 4, 5 and 10. P.W.4 would state that as he was returning home on the night of 25.11.2003, in his van, one of the tyres got deflated and therefore, when the driver was attending to that tyre, at about 10.30p.m., P.W.4, who was standing on the road at that time, came across the accused, who informed him on questioning that he is returning from Muthianvalasu. The evidence of P.W.4, if accepted, would show that the accused was returning from Muthianvalasu to go to his village. This witness would admit that he knows the accused as well as the deceased. He admits that by 11a.m. on the next day morning, there was a talk that the accused murdered his wife. He would then state that he told his colleague Palanisamy, who was travelling with him that what he had told on the previous night, had happened. If he did not have any hesitation or reservation in his mind, we fail to understand as to why this witness did not go and enquire the accused as to what happened or enquire the relatives or offer condolence to P.W.2 or other relatives or even go to the Police to inform that he saw the accused going to the village on the previous night. He had come to be examined for the first time on 28.11.2003. On going through his evidence, we find that his evidence do not inspire our confidence, for the reasons stated above. Therefore, we are inclined to eliminate the evidence of P.W.4 from our consideration. P.W.10 is thickly related to the accused and she admits such relationship. Her evidence is that one day prior to the day on which Parvathi died, the accused came to her house around 7p.m.; had dinner there; slept there itself and even at 5a.m. on the following morning, she noticed him in the same house. According to her, the accused left later on after having coffee. At that stage, this witness was treated as hostile. From the cross-examination of this witness done by the State, we find that during investigation, she had stated that the accused had come to her house on the evening of 25.11.2003 and he could not be seen in the morning when she woke up. Therefore, the prosecution case itself, as could be seen from the cross-examination, is that the accused went to the house of P.W.10 and was not to be seen in the morning. Whatever it is, the fact remains established from the evidence of P.W.10 and the cross-examination done by the State that the accused had reached the house of P.W.10 on the evening of 25.11.2003. To this extent, P.W.10's evidence deserves acceptance and accordingly, we accept the same. Rest of her evidence that the accused continued to remain there even till late in the morning of 26.11.2003 has to be necessarily rejected because that portion of her evidence is contrary to what she had stated during investigation.
16. Now, we come to the evidence of P.W.5, who appears to be, according to us, a key witness in this case. His evidence shows that he is a man of some respect and he knows the accused as well as the deceased. P.W.5 is carrying on business of attending to repairs in telephones, providing incidental and connected facilities to telephone service and also installing telephones. According to him, when he was returning in his car, after attending to his professional work, in the midnight on 25.11.2003, i.e, during the intervening night of 25.11.2003/26.11.2003, via, Solikkalipalayam, (i.e, the village where the accused and his wife were living with P.W.2), he noticed the accused coming in his motor-cycle from the side lane of his house. P.W.5 would state that he had a casual talk with the accused at that time and the accused moved away stating that there is nothing to say. Coming to know, this witness would say, on the next day morning that Parvathi is dead, he went and observed the dead body and he found the accused there. This witness had been examined during inquest. A perusal of the inquest report shows that summons to this witness has been annexed and this witness has signed in that summons as having attended the inquest as a witness. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would request us to disbelieve this evidence of P.W.5 on the sole ground that till such time, he was examined during inquest, he did not disclose to anyone that on the previous night, near the house of the accused, he saw the accused coming out of the by-lane in a motor-cycle. It must be noticed that when this witness went to the house of the accused, he found the accused there. The involvement of the accused was not known to anybody. It is all the more so, since, the room in which the dead body was found lying and the door to gain entry into the house were found bolted from inside. Under these circumstances, the failure of this witness to disclose the above referred to material fact, till the time he was examined during inquest cannot be taken serious note of. There is one good point to believe the evidence of this witness ie., he was examined during inquest; during inquest, he disclosed this material fact and his statement along with the inquest report had reached the Court on 27.11.2003. It must be noticed here that nobody knew that the accused was going to set up a defence plea of alibi at any time before the trial commenced. If that is had in mind, in our considered opinion, it would be too much to condemn the Police Officer, by saying that he had fabricated the evidence, even at that stage to dislodge the possible defence, which the accused may take at a later stage based on alibi. Therefore, we find that there is a ring of truth in the evidence of P.W.5. He would state that on the previous night, he saw the accused emerging in a motor cycle from the side lane close to his house. Let us summarise, from the above evidence, what are the materials that the prosecution had established upto this stage:
"The accused and his wife were living in the same house along with P.W.2; on the morning of 25.11.2003, P.W.2 left the house leaving behind her mother (deceased) and father (accused); at 5.15p.m., on 25.11.2003, Parvathi, since deceased answered the telephone call of her daughter P.W.2 and therefore, Parvathi was alive at 5.15p.m. on 25.11.2003; P.W.10's evidence shows that the accused came to her house at 7p.m. on 25.11.2003 and the evidence of P.W.5 shows that at about 01.15hours, i.e, on the intervening night of 25.11.2003/26.11.2003, he saw the accused emerging in a motor-cycle from the side lane near his house."
17. P.W.9 is a resident of Varundiapalayam and he was the incharge Village Administrative Officer of Channasamudram. P.W.13 is the regular Village Administrative Officer of Channasamudram. P.W.13's evidence is that at about 8a.m. on 26.11.2003, when he was in his office, P.W.9 appeared in his office and called him to accompany him to the house of Muthusamy ( accused) whose wife had died consuming poison. P.W.9, in his evidence, would state that his wife told him that she received an information over telephone from Solakkalipalayam that the doors of the house of the accused were found bolted from inside and it is not possible to open. Accordingly, P.W.9 reached Solakkalipalayam. When he reached that place, he found about 100 persons there. His evidence shows that P.W.13 was also there. Therefore, whether P.W.9 went to the office of P.W.13 and brought him to the crime scene or by the time P.W.9 reached the crime scene, P.W.13 and others were already there is of no consequence at all since, their evidence establish one fact that they were near the house of the accused at Solakkalipalayam and at that time, about 100 persons were also there. Their evidence shows that when they reached the house of the accused, they found the entry door bolted from inside and there was a crowd outside. In sum and substance, their evidence shows that it was decided to gain forceful entry into the house. Before doing that, they chose P.W.12 to go over the roof to find out as to what happened inside. P.W.12 turned hostile. Whatever it is, the fact remains that entry into the house where the dead body was lying was a forced entry and not an usual entry i.e, entry was by breaking open the door. Their evidence also shows that on entering, there was another room on the western side, which door was also found bolted from inside. That door was opened by P.W.12 gaining entry through the roof and on entering that room, they found Parvathi lying dead. In this context, we want to refer to Ex-P28, the rough sketch prepared. The house of the accused consists of one room on the western side having a window on the western wall and a door on the northern wall. On the eastern side of this room, there is another room separated by a wall. The eastern side room has an opening on the north. Further east of the last referred to room, there is a kitchen and the entry into the kitchen is through a passage for which there is no door. North of the two rooms, namely, the room with the window and the adjoining room on the east, there is a big hall and on the eastern side of this hall, there is a doorway with a door. On the northern side of this big hall, there is another doorway. The dead body was found in the western room noted earlier, where there is a window. The evidence shows that after gaining entry into the main hall by breaking open the door, people entering the room on the western side once again, after the door was opened by P.W.12 from inside brought the dead body outside to the main hall where it was kept in a cot. To recapitulate, the evidence of P.W.s 9 and 13 shows that after gaining entry into the house by breaking open the main door, the parties gained entry into the western room with a window by P.W.12 opening the door of that room from inside where the dead body was found and it was brought out and kept in a cot. Therefore, it is clear, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, that the doors referred to above were bolted from inside.
18. Now, the question is whether anybody including the accused could have gained entry into the house at any point of time and could have come out or is there is a possibility for any person to commit the crime and then come out of the house without keeping the doors referred to above open. We have some clue on this aspect from the Observation Mahazar. The Observation Mahazar shows that from the room where the dead body was fund, one can climb over the wall on the eastern side and enter the adjoining eastern room. From the Observation Mahazar, it could not be seen that the eastern room adjoining the room where the dead body was found lying had an opening for access without any door. We do find from the sketch and the Observation Mahazar that a broken latch was found lying on the floor near the broken door at the entry available on the eastern side. The evidence also shows that the broken latch was lying only in that place. The evidence on record shows that entry was gained into the house by breaking open the main door and entry into the room was made by P.W.12 opening the door of that room from inside. There is absolutely no evidence to show that any other door was broke open. Beyond the door found on the eastern wall of the property in question, we only find hayrick stacked. From the rough sketch we find a door on the northern wall. In other words, entry into the house in question is from the door on the eastern wall and from the door on the northern wall. P.W.9 in his evidence would state that one of the front doors was found closed and when he pushed it, it opened. Having the topography of the house, as shown in Ex-P28, plan, the contents of Observation Mahazar, the evidence of P.W.s 9 and 13, the breaking open of the door on the eastern wall and the broken latch lying near the broken door we are inclined to conclude that the door which opened on a mere push by P.W.9 is the door available on the northern wall of the house. In other words, that door was not found bolted from inside, which means, a person could gain entry through that door and make an exit through that door. Admittedly, the door of the room where the dead body was found was bolted from inside. The Observation Mahazar shows that the wall separating that room from the adjoining room is not upto the ceiling and therefore, one can climb easily over that wall. Therefore, it is possible to infer and conclude that the person, who had committed the murder of Parvathi in the room where the dead body was found, could have easily bolted the door of that room from inside; climbed over the separating wall; gained entry to the main hall and then by closing the door on the eastern wall, could have come out of the house from the door on the northern wall and before leaving the house through that exit, could have closed the door casually. This is what exactly appears to have happened in this case and it is not possible to rule out the same. At this stage, we are not concluding that it is the accused and the accused alone, as the person, who had committed the murder and adopted the modus operandi indicated above to come out of the house. In the light of the materials noted above, the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel that from the mere fact that two doors, referred to above, were broke open to gain entry into the house and entry into the room where the dead body was lying, would only indicate that the accused could not be guilty, do not appeal to us at all. Therefore, we sum up our discussion as hereunder:
"The door on the eastern wall of the house was broke open to gain entry into the main hall; the door on the western room with the window was opened from inside by P.W.12 to gain entry into that room where the dead body was found; the dead body was brought out by the villagers and kept in a cot in the open hall; the person, who had committed the murder in the room, referred to above, would have bolted the door of that room from inside; climbed over the separating wall of the adjoining eastern room; gained entry into the main hall; bolted the door on the eastern wall from inside and then gone out of the house through the door on the northern wall by just closing the door."
19. Let us see the conduct of the accused near the crime scene after P.W.s 9, 13 and others arrived there. P.W.2 is none else than the daughter of the accused and the deceased. There is no evidence to show that the accused was so emotional on seeing his wife dead and that he was wailing and therefore he could not even look at his daughter. In this context, the evidence of P.W.2 assumes considerable importance. She would state that on seeing her mother, she started weeping and at that time, her father was making a number of calls on the telephone and he did not even bother to come and talk to her. It must be noticed that she is the only female child, that too, aged about 15 years, on the date when she gave evidence in Court and it is rather surprising that a father did not console his daughter on seeing her crying on the death of her mother. This conduct on the part of the accused appears to be unusual to us, which only indicates that he does not want to come out of the shell and wants to confine himself to his own thoughts. Then, we have the evidence of P.W.3. He would state that on reaching the house where the crime was committed, he found the accused outside the house making telephone calls. When P.W.3 asked him as to what happened, the accused replied that his wife had consumed insecticide. For this, P.W.3 would state that he asserted to the accused when, despite pending litigations, Parvati did not choose to take such a decision, she being a determined and a courageous lady, would not have done the act attributed to her by the accused and the accused reiterated that his wife had taken "selpas" and P.W.3 again stated that it is not possible to believe that. Nobody knew the cause of death at that time when the dead body was observed. When that is so, how is it possible for the accused to know that his wife had consumed "selpas' insecticide unless he had a hand in the scheme of things by which his wife had come to die. The fact remains in this case that death is not due to poisoning but only due to asphyxia by smothering. Therefore, it is clear to our mind, even on the morning of 26.11.2003, the accused was trying to divert the attention of the on-lookers to a different angle so that he would not be caught at a later point of time. This witness was cross-examined on the point that the accused did not tell him that his wife had consumed poison and this witness had firmly denied the same. Beyond that, the accused is not in a position to make any inroad into the evidence of P.W.3. Then, we have the evidence of P.W.5, who knows the accused as well as the deceased. He would state that when he went to the crime scene to observe the dead body, the accused, on seeing them, just put his head down and he did not thereafter, lift his head to see P.W.5. Unless he had a guilty conscience, we see no reason at all as to why the accused should refuse to look at people, who came to offer condolence. This conduct on the part of the accused in not even lifting his head to see P.W.5, in our considered opinion, establish only his pricking conscience since on the previous night, P.W.5 had seen the accused emerging in a motor-cycle from the side lane near his house.
20. Yet another material available in the evidence of P.W.5 also lends support to our conclusion that the accused is the brain behind the entire episode. P.W.5 would state that when he was enquiring the people, who were present at the crime scene about the death of Parvathi, they said that Parvathi, since deceased, committed suicide by consuming poison. None else than the accused could be the source for such gossip or wrong information because even to P.W.3, as referred to earlier, he had asserted repeatedly that Parvathi had consumed only poison and such a story was brought out by him even before postmortem was done on the dead body to find out the cause of death. P.W.13 would state that when the dead body was seen by all of them including the accused in the room where it was lying, the accused started weeping loudly stating that his wife, for whom he had taken so much care and groomed her in a proper way, is lying dead like that. This seems to be the peak of his performance. We have already referred to the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2, which undoubtedly establish that the accused did not spare any time in ill-treating his wife and such ill-treatment was in the context of his living with another woman. It is impossible to believe that such a person, who had all along been treating his wife with such contempt and disrespect who had been torturing her for so long and who had kicked his wife when she was in the family way for the second time, would express so much sympathy on the death of his wife. From the materials on record, we find that there was no love lost between the accused and his wife. So, the cumulative effect of these circumstances referred to above, very clearly point out one thing and that is, the accused was pretending to be affectionate to his wife and on that pretext he wanted to disassociate himself from the unfortunate incident of his wife dying under unnatural circumstances. The conduct of the accused, as culled out above, would, in our considered opinion, be a relevant conduct to test the innocence or guilt of the accused and according to us, this conduct is totally in favour of the State and not in favour of the accused. By leaving the container containing "selpas" insecticide poison, the tumbler containing half of its volume of pre-mixed insecticide in water and another tumbler by the side of the dead body, it is clear that the person, who had committed the murder of Parvathi was planning to see that he is not caught in the offence and that is why, he had made such an arrangement to make it appear as though Parvathi died of poisoning. From the materials noted by us above, we have no hesitation to conclude that it is the accused and the accused alone, who had committed the murder in the manner stated by us in the earlier paragraphs.
21. There is yet another circumstance available in this case. According to the prosecution, on the arrest of the accused, blood-stained dhoti, blood-stained full-hand shirt and blood-stained pillow cover namely, M.O.s 10 to 12 came to be recovered. The accused in his written statement, filed at the end of his questioning, had stated as hereunder:
"M.O.s 10 and 11, his blood-stained wearing apparel are produced in Court by the State; two days prior to 27.11.2003, when I was starting my motor-cycle, I received an injury on my right leg; the blood that came out of that injury fell on M.O.s 10 and 11; I kept those clothes in my house and the Police, taking it from my house, are using it against me."
Therefore, there is no dispute that M.O.s 10 and 11 belong to the accused. The Serologist's report, Ex-P25, of both the above objects, shows that they contain human blood of "O" group. Of course, the accused by examining D.W.1, the laboratory assistant and by marking Ex-D2, had established that his blood group is "O". But, the accused had not explained as to how the pillow cover, recovered at his instance, came to contain human blood of "O" group. The prosecution case is that the pillow cover M.O.12 is the cover for M.O.13 pillow, which was found in the house where the dead body was lying. The stand of the accused that M.O.12 is not meant for M.O.13 do not appeal to us at all. If really, the accused had sustained an injury, as spoken to by him while he started his motor-cycle, he ought to have proved that he sustained such an injury. Excepting his ipsi dixit, he has not produced any other evidence. If the injury suffered by the accused had resulted in so much of bleeding, then he ought to have gone to a doctor. But, he had not examined any doctor. Therefore, it is clear that the above referred to circumstance namely, the recovery of M.O.s 10 and 11 containing human blood of "O" group, as found in M.O.12, is an additional circumstance in favour of the State.
22. It is true that P.W.12 turned hostile and the investigating officer admitted that footprints available on the wall of the room where the dead body was found and the fingerprints available on the ceiling tiles must be that of the person, who gained entry into the house by opening the roof tile. The submission made by the learned senior counsel that the person, who entered the house opening the roof tile, whose footprints and fingerprints alone were found, as noted above, would have committed the murder and then come out of the house in the same manner, do not appeal to us at all since, the evidence of P.W.s 9 and 13 show that it is only P.W.12, who entered the house in the manner referred to above to open the door. Therefore, we hold, from the totality of materials noted above, that the circumstances establish that it is only the accused and the accused alone, who had committed the murder and nobody else.
21. In this context, we refer to the various case laws brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel. In 1995 SCC (Cri) 985 (Kailash Potlia V. State of A.P.), the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that the circumstance namely, presence of the appellant near the crime scene at midnight and the injury on his finger would not be sufficient to connect the appellant to the crime. But, on the facts available in the case on hand, we find that there are sufficient circumstances to connect the accused to the crime. Learned senior counsel also relied on the judgment reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 160 (Rajkumar V. State of M.P.) to contend that a mere false plea set up by the defence would not be taken as a conclusive circumstance to hold the accused guilty in a case based on circumstantial evidence. We have no dispute on that proposition. But, in the case on hand, the State has not only relied upon the false plea of alibi set up by the defence to connect the accused to the crime, but also the other noted circumstances as well. In 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 549 ( Gayadin V. State of M.P.), relied upon by the learned senior counsel, once again, the Supreme Court has held that merely because the accused takes a false plea of alibi, would not positively show that he is responsible for the crime. With respect, we state, as noted earlier, besides the false plea, the State has relied upon a number of other circumstances. In AIR 1939 Privy Council 47 (Narayana Swami V. Emperor), it was held that motive would not be relevant in the absence of proof of any other circumstance pointing out to the guilt of the accused. In this case, besides motive, there are several other circumstances, which we have culled out, pointing out to the guilt of the accused. In 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893 (Narendra Singh V. State of M.P.), it was held that mere presence of the accused in the company of the victim is not a conclusive ground to establish his guilt. We have to only reiterate that in the case on hand, we have found sufficient circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we state, with respect that the above referred to judgments cannot be of any help to the accused.
22. For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, it is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
nv To
1. The Prl. Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The Dist. Collector, Erode.
3. The DGP, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
5. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.
6. The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Erode Dist.
[PRV/8890]