Madras High Court
Murugan @ Murugavel vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2002
Author: M. Chockalingam
Bench: M. Chockalingam
JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.
1. The appellant has brought forth this appeal challenging the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore finding him guilty under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarding life imprisonment.
2. A charge under S. 302 of I.P.C. was levelled against the appellant/accused stating that he murdered his wife Thangamani by cutting her neck with aruval on 2.5.1993 at about 5.30 A.M. at his residence in Dhali.
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can shortly be stated as follows:
P.W.1 Nachammal and her husband P.W.2 Palanisamy were living with their second daughter P.W.3 Thangeswari and their son P.W.13 Selvaraj at North Street, Dhali. Their first daughter, the deceased Thangamani was given in marriage to her maternal uncle Nachimuthu about 7 years prior to the occurrence. In view of the strained relationship, she left the matrimonial home and was living with her parents in Dhali and doing coolie work. She developed illicit intimacy with the accused and left the Village for about two or three months. They returned back to Dhali and got married and were living in a separate house. As the days passed on, they joined with the family members of P.W.2. They had two female children, and they were also living with the parents. The accused has suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased that she had developed illicit relationship with P.W.6 Thangavel, and in view of the same, there were frequent quarrels, which resulted in visits to her parents' house often. Ten days prior to the occurrence, the deceased left for her parents' house. A few days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused went to P.W.2's house and on the assurance that he would live with her peacefully, took her back home. On 2.5.1993 at about 5.30 A.M., P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 came to the house of the accused to take the deceased to Thirumoorthimalai temple as per the schedule. At that time, all of them witnessed the accused cutting the neck of the deceased with M.O.1 aruval. P.W.s 4 and 5 saw the accused running from the place of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to Dhali Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station registered a case in Crime No.188 of 1993 under S. 302 of I.P.C. and sent Ex.P17 express First Information Report to the concerned Magistrate's Court.
4. On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. through a constable, P.W.15 G.Kuppuswamy, Inspector of Police, Udumalpet, proceeded to the place of occurrence, inspected the same in the presence of P.W.7 Pattabi and Ravichandran and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P18 Rough Sketch. The scene of occurrence and the dead body of Thangamani were photographed by P.W.10 Hakkim, a photographer, and Ex.P9 series are the photographs. He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained aruval, M.O.2 bloodstained earth, M.O.3 sample earth, M.O.4 bloodstained mat and M.Os.5 and 6 bloodstained pillows under Ex.P3 Mahazar. From 12.30 P.M. to 3.30 P.M., he conducted the inquest on the dead body of Thangamani and prepared Ex.P19 inquest report. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. While the inquest was going on, P.W.8 Ramanathan, Village Administrative Officer produced the accused along with Ex.P5 report containing the confessional statement given by the accused. In the presence of the said witnesses, the Investigation Officer recovered from the accused M.O.7 bloodstained dothi and M.O.8 bloodstained shirt under Ex.P4 Mahazar. The dead body of Thangamani was despatched to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet for postmortem with Ex.P10 requisition through P.W.11 Subramaniam, Grade I Constable. On receipt of Ex.P10 requisition, P.W.14 Dr.Prakash attached to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet commenced the autopsy on the dead body of Thangamani at 4.30 P.M., conducted the same and issued Ex.P16 postmortem certificate. During autopsy, the Doctor found the following injuries.
1. A horizontally placed incised wound above the level of thyroid cartilage 2 cms on left of midline, 6 cms on right side of midline, totally 8 cms in length x 2 cm x 2 cm exposing cut edges of underlying muscles, blood vessels and cartilages.
2. A horizontally placed incised wound 1/2 cm below and right of wound No.1, 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm.
3. A horizontally placed incised wound on lateral side of neck 6 cms below angle of right jaw, 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.
4. A horizontally placed incised wound below the thyroid cartilage on right side 2.5 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.
The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained 10-14 hours prior to autopsy; that all the injuries could have been caused by an aruval like M.O.1; and that the death would have been instantaneous.
5. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. M.Os.1 to 8 and 11 to 14 were despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court along with Ex.P12 requisition to send them for chemical analysis. The Chemical Analyst's report and the Serologist's report were marked as Exs.P14 and P15 respectively. The Investigation Officer made Ex.P6 requisition before P.W.9 S.Lakshmi, Judicial Magistrate No.3, Pollachi for recording the statement of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 13 under S. 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was ordered accordingly. As per the orders of that Court, the said witnesses were produced on 21.5.93 at 2.00 P.M. P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate No.3 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1,2 and 5, which were marked as Exs.P7, P8 and P9 respectively. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid a charge sheet under S. 302 of I.P.C. against the accused.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and 16 material objects. When the accused was questioned under KS.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the versions of the prosecution witnesses as false and stated that on the previous night, he went to Udumalpet for night show; that he returned to Dhali at about 5.30 morning; that when he entered, he found the dead body of Thangamani in a pool of blood, and he immediately went to Dhali Police Station and made a complaint, but he was asked to wait there by the police officials, who subsequently arrested him; and that he had nothing to do with the crime in question. His statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.3 under S. 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure was marked as Ex.D1. After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the available materials, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and awarded him life imprisonment as stated above. Aggrieved appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.
7. The appellant has assailed the judgment of the Court of Sessions, whereby he was found guilty of a charge of murder alleging that he caused the death of his wife Thangamani by cutting her neck with aruval at his residence at Dhali on 2.5.1993 at about 5.30 A.M.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused would submit that the lower court has found the accused guilty in a grave case of murder without any evidence whatsoever; that the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and 13 as eyewitnesses; that since P.Ws.2 to 5 have turned hostile, the prosecution has relied only on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 13; that a close reading of the cross examination of P.W.1 would clearly show that she has categorically admitted that she did not see the occurrence, and hence, her evidence was of no avail to the prosecution; that so far as P.W.13 was concerned, he was 15 years old; that while the other eyewitnesses have not stated anything about the occurrence, the lower court should have disbelieved the uncorroborated testimony of a boy of 15 years; that even a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.13 would clearly reveal that it was highly contradictory to the prosecution case; that P.W.13 has deposed that several persons were in the scene of occurrence, but the prosecution has not chosen to examine any one of the independent witnesses; that the presence of P.W.13 in the scene of occurrence was not at all spoken to by P.W.1, which would clearly indicate that P.W.13 was not at all present at the time of the alleged occurrence, and hence, the lower court should have rejected the testimony of P.W.13; that on the previous night, the accused went to Udumalpet to witness a night show; that he missed the last bus; that he could not reach Dhali that night; that he stayed over there; that he came by the first bus; that when he made entry into his house, he found her dead and was able to see number of injuries caused over the body; that immediately he proceeded to the Police Station and gave a complaint, and he has also produced the cinema ticket and bus ticket, but the police, who made him to wait, have registered a case against him; that all the prosecution witnesses would clearly state that they were in the Police Station by 8.00 or 9.00 A.M.; that while so, the prosecution has come forward to state that he surrendered before P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer, and he made a confession before him, and it was P.W.8, V.A.O. who produced him before the Police, which was highly unbelievable and improbable in view of the available evidence; that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly prove the case of the defence that the accused on seeing his wife murdered by someone, rushed to the Police Station to give a complaint; that even in the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate marked as Ex.D1, the accused has narrated the entire story, which the lower Court should have believed; that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also support the defence theory of alibi; that M.O.7 dhoti and M.O.8 shirt were never recovered from the accused; that since the arrest itself was totally false, the consequent recovery should also have been rejected by the lower court, and thus, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused in any way, and hence, the appeal has got to be allowed, and the appelant be acquitted of the charge.
9. Countering to the above contentions of the appellant's side, the learned Government Advocate would urge that out of the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 13 have clearly spoken about the murderous assault made by the accused on his wife with M.O.1 aruval; that within a short time, P.W.1 has given Ex.P1 complaint, and a case has also been registered; that during investigation, M.O.1 aruval has been recovered from the place of occurrence; that the accused has appeared before P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer and has given a confessional statement, which has been recorded by him; that the appellant/accused was produced before the Police along with the said statement; that M.O.7 dhoti and M.O.8 shirt worn by the accused at the time of occurrence were recovered and were subjected to chemical analysis; that the report of the chemical analyst would clearly indicate the truth of the prosecution case; that P.W.13 has given a clinching evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused; that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the ocular testimony adduced by the prosecution, and thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts; that only after careful consideration of the entire evidence, the lower court has found the appellant guilty and convicted him, and hence, the judgment of the lower court has got to be sustained.
10. Admittedly, the deceased Thangamani, who was given in marriage to her maternal uncle, due to strained relationship, left the matrimonial home and was living with her parents viz. P.Ws.1 and 2 at Dhali. While she was doing coolie work, she developed illicit intimacy with the accused. Both of them left the place for a few months, returned back and got married. The deceased had two female children, aged 4 and 2 years respectively through the accused. From the available evidence, it is quite clear that the accused entertained suspicion over the fidelity, which resulted in frequent quarrels, and she used to go to her parental home. Ten days prior to the occurrence also, on similar occasion, the deceased came to P.W.2's house. A few days before the occurrence, the accused came to Dhali and took her stating that he would maintain her well. On the date of occurrence viz. 2.5.1993 at about 5.30 A.M., P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 have come to the house of the deceased to take her to Thirumoorthi Hills. According to the said witnesses, the said programme was a pre-scheduled one, and the accused has also admitted the same, while he was questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution, when those witnesses entered into the house of the deceased, they witnessed the accused cutting the deceased on her neck with M.O.1 aruval. In order to prove the same, though the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and 13, P.Ws.2 to 5 have turned hostile. Though P.W.1 has stated in the chief examination that she saw the accused attacking her daughter with aruval, during the cross examination, she stated that she did not see the occurrence. But from her evidence, it would be clear that she went to the Police Station and gave a complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. P.W.13, the other eyewitness relied on by the prosecution, has categorically deposed that he along with his parents and sister went to the house of the deceased at about 5.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence to take her to Thirumoorthi Hills; that all of them witnessed the accused attacking the deceased on her neck; and that on seeing them, the accused leaving M.O.1 aruval fled away from the scene of occurrence. He has also deposed that his parents P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the house, followed by him and his sister; that even before they entered into the house, the deceased had blood injuries on her neck; and that even after their entry, the accused gave two more cut injuries. Nothing worth mentioning has been brought forth in the cross examination of the said witness, and it remains unshaken. The appellant is unable to show any reason or strong circumstance to disbelieve or reject his testimony. Merely because of the reason that he was the brother of the deceased, his evidence cannot be rejected, since his testimony stood the careful scrutiny of the Court. The Court is of the view that his evidence is clinching and natural, and the same inspires the confidence of the Court. Hence, without any hesitation his evidence has got to be accepted.
11. On receipt of Ex.P10 requisition, P.W.14 Dr.Prakash conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Thangamani, found four incised wounds on the neck and opined that those injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 aruval, and the death would have been instantaneous, and the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained 10-14 hours prior to autopsy and has issued Ex.P16 postmortem certificate. The Postmortem Doctor has further clarified in his cross examination that all the four injuries could have been caused while the deceased was in a lying posture, and all the injuries were separate and distinct, and hence, they could have been caused by four separate cuts. The Court may hasten to say that the evidence of P.W.14 Doctor and the contents of Ex.P16 postmortem certificate stood in full corroboration of the ocular testimony adduced through P.W.13.
12. While the occurrence has taken place by 5.30 A.M. on 2.5.1993, P.W.1 has given Ex.P1 complaint, and a case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police at about 6.30 A.M. under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to point out that Ex.P17 Express First Information Report has also reached the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet at 9.00 A.M. The lodging of the complaint with all relevant and material facts of the prosecution case and the registration of a case within a short spell of an hour and the fact that the F.I.R. reached the Court of the Judicial Magistrate situated at 25 kilometers away would be one of the circumstances pointing to the truth of the prosecution case. During investigation P.W.15 Inspector of Police has recovered from the place of occurrence M.O.1 bloodstained aruval, M.O.2 bloodstained earth, M.O.3 sample earth, M.O.4 bloodstained mat and M.Os.5 and 6 bloodstained pillows under Ex.P3 Mahazar. The said recovery is proved through the evidence of P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer. On arrest, the Investigation Officer has recovered from the accused M.O.7 bloodstained dhoti and M.O.8 bloodstained shirt under Ex.P4 Mahazar. It is pertinent to point out that the accused has not denied that M.Os.7 and 8 belonged to him. Those bloodstained dhoti and bloodstained shirt were subjected to chemical analysis along with all other material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and the dead body of Thangamani. Significant it is to state that the blood group found in the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused at the time of occurrence tallied with the blood group contained in the other material objects viz. M.Os.5 and 6 pillows recovered from the place of occurrence and M.O.11 saree, M.O.12 skirt, M.O.13 blouse and M.O.14 thali thread recovered from the dead body of Thangamani. This would clinchingly indicate the nexus between the accused and the crime.
13. Apart from all the above, the Court has to necessarily point out that the accused has miserably failed to prove the theory of alibi. Admittedly, the accused and his wife, the deceased were living together in their residence at Dhali, which was the place of occurrence. The occurrence took place on 2.5.1993 at about 5.30 A.M. According to the statement made by the accused and recorded by P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate as Ex.D1, he went to Udumalpet the previous night and witnessed the night show, and he missed the last bus, and he came to Dhali the next day morning by 5.30 A.M. by catching the first bus, and when he entered the house, he found his wife Thangamani dead in the midst of pool of blood. The accused has well admitted that they had a programme to go to Thirumoorthi Hills that morning, and for that purpose, P.Ws.1 and 2 would come to take the deceased. If that be so, it would be highly improbable that he left Udumalpet to witness the night show the previous night. According to the Investigation Officer, the last bus at Udumalpet to Dhali was at 10.30 P.M., and there was no bus facility thereafter. Hence, the statement of the accused that he missed the last bus after the night show, cannot but be false. Nowhere has he stated where he stayed that night at Udumalpet. His further statement that when he entered his residence at 5.30 A.M. on the day of occurrence, he found his wife already murdered with the severe injuries, inflicted on her body and in the midst of pool of blood, and he directly went to the Police Station even without enquiring his neighbours would be contrary to the ordinary human conduct. But the evidence of P.W.13 an eyewitness and all other circumstances as discussed above would clinchingly prove that it was the appellant/accused who caused the instantaneous death of his wife by attacking her with M.O.1 aruval.
14. Needless to say that the extra judicial confession is a good piece of evidence. That apart, in the instant case, it is contended by the prosecution that the accused surrendered before P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer and made a confessional statement; and that P.W.8 V.A.O. produced him before the Investigation Officer with Ex.P5 report. It has to be pointed out that no confessional statement recorded from the accused is produced before the Court. A perusal of Ex.P5 document would reveal that it was only a report written by P.W.8 V.A.O. and not a confessional statement. Hence, no evidentiary value could be attached to the said document. Thus, the contentions put forth by the appellant's side do not merit acceptance. The Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the court below. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court has to be sustained.
15. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the lower court. The learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.