Madras High Court
Rajambal vs State on 22 July, 2016
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 22.07.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.A.No.694 of 2015 1.Rajambal 2.Rajendran ... Appellants vs. State,by The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.225 of 2013) ... Respondent Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.152 of 2014. For Appellant : Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,Addl.P.P. JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellants in this appeal are the accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.152 of 2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. The first accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of IPC and the second accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The 3rd accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court, after trial, by judgement dated 16.09.2015 convicted the first appellant/first accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and convicted the second appellant/second accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Court acquitted the third accused. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(i) The deceased in this case was one Jothilakshmi. The first accused was the mother-in-law and the second accused was father-in-law and third accused was the husband of the deceased. The marriage between the third accused and the deceased took place 7 months prior to the occurrence, it was a love marriage and the same was opposed by the first and second accused. After the marriage, some time the deceased go to her parental house and came back her matrimonial house. The first and second accused harassed the deceased frequently for demanding dowry. On the date of occurrence, namely, on 18.08.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased was in her parental house, A-3 demanded money from the deceased, but she refused, the 3rd accused beaten the deceased and left the house, then the deceased went to her matrimonial house, there the second accused beaten the deceased with wooden stick, at that time, P.W.1, the mother of the deceased reached the scene of occurrence, and she saw all the three accused poured kerosene and set fire on her, immediately she along with others doused the fire and took her to the Government Hospital, Perambalur through 108 ambulance.
(ii) P.W.9, Doctor, working in the casualty in Government Hospital, Perambalur, admitted the deceased in the hospital. At the time, the deceased told him that A-1/her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire on her. He found 96% burn injuries and he sent a requisition letter to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur for recording dying declaration and he issued Accident Register (Ex.P8).
(iii) On receipt of the memo, P.W.10, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, reached the Hospital at about 1.40 a.m., after being satisfied with the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration, and after obtaining a certificate from the duty Doctor, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. At the time, the deceased told him that A-1 and A-2 poured kerosene and set fire on her, at the time one of her sister-in-law was also present, but she did not prevent them, A-1, A-2 and her sister in law surrounded her, and she did not know who set fire on her, she further stated that, A-1 alone is responsible for the occurrence.
(iii) P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the message from Government Hospital, Perambalur, at about 8.00 a.m., visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. At the time, the deceased told him that only her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire on her, her husband was also present and he did not questioned his mother. Based on the statement of the deceased, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 307 of IPC, prepared FIR (Ex.P10) and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court as well as to the higher officials.
(iv) P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, on receipt of the first information report, commenced the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.11), drew a rough sketch (Ex.P12). He recovered a plastic can (M.O.1) in the presence of witnesses and he examined some witnesses and recorded their statements. At about 4.00 p.m., P.W.13 arrested the accused 1 and 2, and sent them to the judicial custody. At about 5.30 p.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries, hence P.W.13, altered the case one under Sections 294(b), 323, 302 of IPC and alteration report (Ex.P14). On 20.08.2013, P.W.13 went to the Government Hospital, Perambalur, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars, inquest report (Ex.P15) and sent the dead body for postmortem through Head Constable.
(v) P.W.2, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Perambalur, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries.
External Injuries:
95% burns all over the body, except both foot, scalp and genitalia.
Internal Examination:-
Hyoid bone intact. Thorax Trachea Normal, Mucosa Pale. Ribs: both sides intact. Lungs Both sides intact, congested. Heart: intact, chamber contain 75 ml clotted blood. Abdomen- Liver: intact Pale, Spleen : intact, congested, Intestine intact. Stomjatch contains 90 ml of yellow coloured fluid present. Kidney both sides intact, pale. Bladder: empty. Uterus empty and normal size, skull Bone intact, Brain intact pale.
He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to burns injury. He gave Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P1).
(vi) P.W.13, continued the investigation, examined the postmortem Doctor and other witnesses, recorded their statements and sent a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate Court for recording the statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C., after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited and 1 material object was marked.
4. Out of the above witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, the deceased and the 3rd accused came to the village after three months of their marriage. On the date of occurrence, the deceased was in her parental house, at about 9.00 p.m., the 3rd accused came there and demanded jewels from the deceased, but she refused, the accused scolded her and left her house, the deceased followed him. Subsequently, A-2 attacked the deceased with wooden log, and all the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her. Immediately, P.W.1 called her relative, she along with P.W.6 and others doused the fire and took her to the Government Hospital, Perambalur through 108 ambulance. In her cross examination, P.W.1 stated that she only saw the accused with burn injuries near the water channel after the occurrence. P.W.2 was the Doctor working in the Government Hospital, Perambalur. He conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued Postmortem Certificate. P.W.3 is the relative of the deceased. According to him, after hearing the news, he went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased with burn injuries, at the time she told him that all the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her. P.W.4 is a resident of Thachur colony. He only saw the deceased after the occurrence and sent her to the Hospital in 108 ambulance. P.W.5 turned hostile. P.W.6 is the sister's son of P.W.1. He along with P.W.1 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Perambalur. P.Ws.7 and 8 turned hostile. P.W.9 was the Doctor working in the Government Hospital, Perambalur, in the casualty, admitted the deceased in the hospital and gave Accident Register (Ex.P8). P.W.10 was the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.11 was the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.12 was the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, on receipt of the information from the Government Hospital went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased and based on the statement registered a case against the accused. P.W.13 was the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, on receipt of the first information report, he commenced the investigation, examined the postmortem Doctor and other witnesses and recorded their statements, arrested the accused, recovered the material objects and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. Their defence was a total denial. The accused did not examine any witness and no document was marked on his side.
6. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 are before this Court.
7. We have heard Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
8. The deceased was the daughter of P.W.1 and wife of third accused. The appellants 1 and 2 are in-laws of the deceased. According to P.W.1, the marriage between the 3rd accused and the deceased took place seven months prior to the occurrence and it was a love marriage, on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 p.m., the third accused came to her house, and demanded jewels from the deceased, but she refused, hence he attacked the deceased and left the house, later the deceased went to the matrimonial house, and P.W.1 also followed them. At that time, the third accused beat her with wooden log, then all the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire on her. But, in the cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that she reached the house of the accused only 15 minutes after the occurrence and she saw the deceased with burn injuries near the water channel, thereafter, 10 villagers came to the scene of occurrence, she and P.W.6 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Perambalur. Considering the above evidence of P.W.1, the presence of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful and it is highly unsafe to rely upon her evidence to convict the appellants/accused.
9. In the instant case, there are three dying declarations. P.W.9-Doctor admitted the deceased in the Hospital and at the time of admission, the deceased told him that at about 9.00 pm., only her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire on her. He recorded the statement at about 11.30 p.m., on 18.08.2013. Subsequently, on 19.08.2003 at about 1.40 am., the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur recorded the dying declaration, before him the deceased told that at the time of occurrence her husband along with sister-in-law went out of the house, and the accused 1 and 2 poured kerosene on her, and one of her sister-in-law was also present but she did not prevent them to do so, all of them surrounded her and she did not notice who set fire on her. Subsequently, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.13-the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the deceased, wherein she told that at the time of occurrence her father-in-law attacked her with wooden log and A3/her husband noticing the same without any objection, then A1/mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire on her. Based on the above statement of the deceased, P.W.13 registered the case. In the above three dying declarations, there are lot of contradictions, in the first statement before the Doctor, the deceased only implicated A-1/mother-in-law and in the judicial dying declaration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, she gave different version that A-1 and A-2 poured kerosene, at that time her sister-in-law was also present and all the three persons surrounded her and she did not notice who set fire on her, in the third dying declaration given before the Sub Inspector of Police, she stated that at the time of occurrence, her father-in-law/A-2 attacked her with wooden log and her husband was also present but he kept quite, and her mother-in-law/A-1 poured kerosene, set fire on her. The discrepancy found in all the dying declarations are not trivial, but it is substantial discrepancy. Hence, it is unsafe to rely upon the above dying declaration to convict the appellants/accused. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants in S.C.No.152 of 2014 dated 16.10.2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them and bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts paid by them are ordered to be refunded forthwith.
(S.N.J.,) (V.B.D.J.,)
22.07.2016
rrg
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Cuddalore
2.The Inspector of Police,
Ramanatham Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,
and
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,
Crl.A.No.694 of 2015
22.07.2016
http://www.judis.nic.in