Madras High Court
Veeramani vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 12 April, 2006
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
JUDGMENT AR. Ramalingam, J.
1. Appellant viz., Veeramani is the first accused before the Trial Court in S.C.No. 116 of 2002 with conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/= and under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/=.
2. Brief facts behind this appeal can be stated as follows:-
The deceased is the wife of the appellant/A1 and her name is Arasilankumari. Their marriage was conducted about nine years back. After three years of the marriage, the appellant/A1 was having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and in that connection, panchayat was convened in the year 1999 and 2000 at the instance of PW3 Murugesan and others and even then there was no happy and amicable life between the appellant and the deceased Arasilankumari. Further, they were frequently quarreling with each other. Whileso, in the early morning on 20.1.2000, the appellant with the intention of murdering Arasilankumari, inserted a saree into her mouth and also by using the same saree, strangulated her and caused death of Arasilankumari and thereafter made Arasilankumari to hang upon the rafter of the house to make it appear as if Arasilankumari herself committed suicide by hanging to screen the offence committed by the appellant. Thereupon, on information and knowledge about the occurrence, PW1 viz., Dharmalingam, father of Arasilankumari, PW2 viz., Paramasivam, the paternal uncle's son of PW1, PW3 Murugesan who was using to conduct panchayat and mediation between the husband and wife, PW4 Rathnammal, junior paternal aunt of the deceased Arasilankumari, PW5 Mohan relative of the deceased Arasilankumari came to the house of the appellant. On enquiry about the occurrence made by P.Ws.1 to 3, the appellant/A1 gave extra judicial confession to them to the effect that it is he who caused the death of his wife Arasilankumari and made her to hang upon the rafter to make it appear as suicide. Thereupon, PW7 Annadurai and other witnesses came there. PW1 went to the police station and gave complaint marked as Ex.P1 at about 10.00 am and based upon the complaint, this case was registered by PW13 viz., Shanmugam, Sub Inspector of Police of Padalur Police Station and prepared the printed FIR marked as Ex.P14 and also arrested the appellant as well as other two accused viz., his parents. Thereafter, PW12, Inspector of Police viz., Murugesan, on receipt of information about the registration of this case, came to Padalur Police Station and received the FIR and proceeded to the appellant's house and prepared observation mahazar marked as Ex.P3 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P8 and conducted inquest upon the dead body of Arasilankumari in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report marked as ex.P9 and sent the body for post mortem through the Constable viz., PW11 Periyasamy and examined some witnesses and made arrangements for taking photograph with the help of photographer viz., PW9 Rajesh Kumar and recovered M.Os. 2 to 9 from the dead body and sent them to the Magistrate along with the requisition for sending them for chemical analysis. PW10, Dr.Mathialagan conducted post mortem upon the dead body of Arasilankumari and furnished post mortem report Ex.P5 along with his opinion that the said Arasilankumari should have died due to asphyxia. In continuation, he also examined some more witnesses and sent the requisition for sending the hyoid bone and viscera for chemical analysis and recovered the panchayat muchalika given by panchayatdars. Thereafter, PW14 another Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and also examined PW10 Dr. Mathialagan who conducted post mortem. Following that PW15, another Inspector of Police viz., Kannan completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant as well as other accused, viz., his parents.
3. During the course of trial, the Trial Court, after examining P.Ws.1 to 15 and marking of Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os. 1 to 9, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but, the accused denied their complicity in the offence and the appellant has stated that his wife Arasilankumari committed suicide by hanging in his house and however, the father of the deceased Arasilankumari and her relatives have implicated him and his parents falsely in this case and pleaded innocence.
4. After analysing the available evidence and other materials, the Trial Court has found and come to the conclusion that the appellant/A1 has committed the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and convicted him thereunder after acquitting the other two accused. Such conviction and sentence is the subject matter of this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/A1, after taking us through the entire evidence, contended that it is a case of suicide only and such suicide has been twisted as if the appellant has murdered his wife Arasilankumari by P.Ws.1 and 2, close relatives of Arasilankumari and PW3 Panchayatdar and others and himself and his parents have been implicated falsely in this case and that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested for the prosecution since they are close relatives of the deceased Arasilankumari and the appellant did not give any extra judicial confession to anybody much less P.Ws.1 to 3 and the medical evidence also does not indicate conclusively that the death of Arasilankumari can be only due to murder through asphyxia at the instance of the appellant and thereby there is every doubt to suspect that it could be suicide and thereby the appellant is entitled to get acquittal on benefit of doubt. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. According to the prosecution, the death of Arasilankumari, wife of the appellant is only due to asphyxia committed by the appellant and on the other hand, as per the defence, it is only a suicide at the instance of the deceased Arasilankumari alone and it is not a case of murder. However, on going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and cousin brother of the deceased Arasilankumari, it is seen that as soon as they arrived at the occurrence house and after seeing the dead body hanging in the rafter with saree around the neck and inside the mouth, they got suspicion that it could not be a suicide and on enquiry, the appellant has confessed before them that it is he who strangulated by pressing the neck and made her to die and then managed to put the body in the rafter for the purpose of making to appear as if it is a suicide. Apart from the confession before P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant has also confessed before PW3 viz., Murugesan who is a well wisher and mediator and independent witness, to the effect that it is he who caused the death of Arasilankumari by pressing her neck and then put the body in a hanging position to make it appear as if it is a suicide. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and particularly the evidence of independent and well wisher of the appellant also indicates that it is the appellant alone who caused the death of Arasilankumari. There is no necessity or compulsion on the part of PW3 Natesan who is a Councilor and panchayatdar and well wisher upon the amicable and happy life of the appellant and his wife Arasilankumari to give evidence falsely against the appellant as if he confessed that he alone caused the death.
7. PW4 also has given evidence categorically to the effect that the appellant was torturing the deceased Arasilankumari by having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and there was mediation and panchayat for amicable life and thereby indicating that there was continuous misunderstanding and frequent quarrels between the appellant and his deceased wife Arasilankumari.
8. It is also an important fact to note that the body was hanging in the rafter in a way the knees to touch the floor and hands and legs tied and particularly saree inserted in the mouth and tied around the neck. In other words, the photograph of the body taken by PW9 clearly goes to indicate that in such a position and in the practical approach, Arasilankumari could not have died by hanging herself. Even otherwise, there is no necessity for insertion of saree into her mouth if really she had committed suicide by hanging and also for tying her legs.
9. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that death could be due to partial hanging as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and so, the knees touching the floor cannot be an obstruction for hanging herself. However, such contention of the appellant's counsel cannot be accepted or believed inasmuch as the position of the body as such with hands and legs tied and saree inserted into the mouth as if it is a clear suicide. On the other hand, the appearance of the body in the photograph and extra judicial confession of the appellant to P.Ws.1 to 3 and ever long misunderstanding and quarrel between the husband and wife and the conduct of the appellant in having illicit intimacy with another lady Jayalakshmi, altogether, in our view, clearly indicate that it is nothing but a murder at the instance of the appellant and there cannot be any question of suicide.
10. It is quite natural and reasonable that as soon as the relatives of Arasilankumari and neighbours and other people assembled in the house of the appellant and on enquiry by them, the appellant without any other go readily came forward to confess his act of causing death and then putting the body in a hanging position to show as if it is a suicide. So, it is too much on the part of the appellant and his counsel to say as if the death of Arasilankumari is a suicide and her husband the appellant is innocent.
11. The cumulative effect of all the above observed aspects, in our view, clearly goes to show that it is nothing but a murder at the instance of the appellant and thereby he is liable for conviction under Section 302 and 201 IPC and this appeal has no merits and it deserves to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, in the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Trial Court is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to enable him to undergo the remaining period of sentence.