Madras High Court
Raja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 July, 2008
Bench: P.D.Dinakaran, K.N.Basha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2008 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Crl.A.No.844 of 2006 Raja ... Appellant vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri District.(Cr.No.964/2004). ... Respondent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri dated 20.9.2006 made in S.C.No.152 of 2005. For Appellant : Mr.R.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.9.2006 passed in S.C.No.152 of 2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, against the sole accused/appellant. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed an offence of uxoricide and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution laid the charge sheet against the appellant alleging that on 30.7.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., due to the illicit relationship of his wife, Sivammal with another person, he caused her death by strangulating her neck with a nylon thali chain and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and when initially questioned, the accused denied the commission of offence and hence, the case was put up for trial. To prove the charge, the prosecution marched P.Ws.1 to 15, produced Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 to 7.
4. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the witnesses is as follows:
(a) The accused Raja is the husband of the deceased Sivammal and they have four children out of their wedlock. P.W.10 is their daughter and P.W.11 is the mother of the deceased Sivammal. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are related to the accused, in that, the accused is the son of junior mother-in-law of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law of P.W.1. The accused and the deceased were residents of Kallipuram and the accused was a coolie by profession. P.W.1 is a homeopathy doctor and P.W.2 is working as an accountant in the Electricity Board.
(b) While residing at Kallipuram, the deceased Sivammal developed intimacy with one Munuswamy and about two months prior to the occurrence, she eloped with the said Munuswamy. On coming to know that she is residing at Bangalore, on 25.7.2004, the accused went to Bangalore and brought her back and out of shame, he did not go to Kallipuram and he stayed in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the deceased at Nallakoundenhalli. While so, on 30.7.2004 at about 12.00 noon, the accused went to the clinic of P.W.1 and he was seen in an agitated mood by P.W.1 and after drinking water, the accused left the place without saying anything to P.W.1. After returning home at about 9.00 p.m., P.W.1 enquired his wife, P.W.2 and his son Satishkumar and they informed him that at about 8.30 p.m., the accused came there and while they were talking, the accused, saying that somebody passed thereby, asked Satishkumar, son of P.Ws.1 and 2, to bring torch light and on finding nobody in the house, they went to upstairs and found the dead body of the deceased lying there and the same was informed to P.W.2, who also went and saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.1 immediately went to the terrace and found the dead body and he also noticed ligature marks around the neck. When P.W.1 asked for the accused, he was not there.
(c) P.Ws.3 and 4, the brothers-in-law of P.W.1, were proceeding to the house of P.W.1 and on the way, they saw the accused in a depressed mood and when they questioned him, the accused replied that because his wife was having illicit relationship with another person, he murdered her and saying so, he went away. On seeing P.W.1 coming in front of them searching for the accused, they informed P.W.1 about the confession made by the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1, implicating the accused.
(d) P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station, on receipt of the complaint at about 3.30 a.m. on 31.7.2004, registered a case in Crime No.964 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint and Ex.P.18 is the printed F.I.R. and the same were sent to Court and copies to higher officials.
(e) P.W.15, Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the case on receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. and proceeded to the scene of crime, observed it and prepared Ex.P.3, observation mahazar and Ex.P.19, rough sketch. He caused the photographs of the dead body to be taken by P.W.12. He held inquest in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others and recorded their statements. Ex.P.20 is the inquest report. The dead body was thereafter sent to the hospital through a police constable, P.W.13, with a requisition to conduct autopsy.
(f) P.W.8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sivammal and noticed a black coloured contusion in front of the neck extending on both sides up to and below the occipital - length 38 cm. and breadth 3/4 cm. He issued Ex.P.6, post-mortem certificate, reserving his opinion as to the cause of death pending hypopathological report and on receipt of Ex.P.15, he opined that the death was on account of asphyxia due to compression over the trachea and it would have occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy.
(g) Continuing with the investigation, P.W.15 recovered a pair of chappal - M.O.1 from the scene of occurrence. He examined P.Ws.3, 4 and others and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused at about 3.00 p.m. and pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused, the nylon thali rope - M.O.3 was recovered under a mahazar attested by P.W.5 and another. The accused was sent for judicial remand and the material objects were sent to Court with a request to forward them for chemical examination. He examined witnesses on various dates and recorded their statements. P.W.9, magisterial clerk sent the material objects to laboratory and received Exs.P.11 to 14, chemical examiner's reports and serologist reports. The investigating officer, on receipt of medical reports, questioned the doctor and recorded his statement. After completing the formalities, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 10.9.2004.
(h) On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials, which he denied as false and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. Neither a witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of defence.
(i) The trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, found the appellant guilty of the charge and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as referred to earlier. Hence, this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances brought forth by the prosecution are not consistent with the guilt of the accused and even if the entire facts are taken to be true, the offence would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. and that the accused has caused the death of the deceased on account of sustained provocation due to the deceased having illicit relationship with another person.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that the circumstances clinchingly point out to the guilt of the accused and they form a complete chain without any missing link and hence, the judgment of the trial Court warrants no interference by this Court.
7. The cause of death of Sivammal is not in dispute. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.8, who conducted post-mortem and who issued Ex.P.6, the post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased Sivammal died on account of asphyxia due to compression over trachea, proves that Sivammal died on account of strangulation. The only question that is to be decided by this Court is whether the said strangulation is suicidal or homicidal and if it is homicidal, whether it was committed by the appellant.
8. The case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that the circumstances forming that evidence must be conclusively established and even when so established, they must form such a complete chain that it is not only consistent with his guilt but is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.
9.1. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1990 SC 709], it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10):
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
9.2. In the light of the above, let us analyse the evidence to find out whether the circumstances brought forth by the prosecution are consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence.
10. The circumstances, which the prosecution relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused are:
(i) motive - accused and deceased are husband and wife; deceased developed intimacy with another person by name Munusamy; deceased eloped with the said Munusamy to Bangalore and she was brought back by the accused a few days prior to the occurrence;
(ii) averments in the inquest report leading to the cause of death of the deceased;
(iii)evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the nervousness expressed by the accused to P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence;
(iv) evidence of P.W.2 about the conduct of the accused in revealing the crime and in absconding immediately thereafter and therefore, principle of res gestae applies ;
(v) extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.Ws.3 and 4 on the same day at 8.30 p.m.;
(vi) immediately after the extra judicial confession, complaint was lodged and the law was set in motion;
(vii)medical evidence through P.W.8, post-mortem doctor and Ex.P.6, post-mortem certificate; and
(viii)recovery of M.O.3, nylon thali chain, from the accused after his arrest.
11. In the instant case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are closely related to the accused, in that, the accused is the son of junior mother-in-law of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law of P.W.1 and hence, they are also related to the accused. The motive alleged by the prosecution is the immoral character of the deceased in having illicit relationship with another person by name Munusamy. It is the categorical evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased, after her marriage with the accused, developed intimacy with one Munusamy, who used to come to the house of the deceased, due to which there was no love-lost between the deceased and the accused and hence, they got separated in a panchayat and that two months prior to the occurrence, she eloped with the said Munusamy and stayed with him at Bangalore. It is their further evidence that the accused on coming to know about the whereabouts of the deceased, went to Bangalore and brought her back and both stayed in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2, instead of going to their village out of shame. The above evidence also gets reflected in Ex.P.1, complaint, the first document to come into existence and though it is not a substantive piece of evidence, it can be used either to corroborate or to contradict the maker thereof. That apart, P.W.10, the daughter of the accused and the deceased, though turned hostile with regard to the illicit intimacy, admits the frequent visits of Munusamy to their house. It is, therefore, clear that all was not well with the accused and the deceased.
12. The next circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1, according to whom, on the date of occurrence at about 12.00 noon, the accused came to his clinic and he was seen nervous and when questioned, he did not reply and after drinking water, he left the clinic. This shows that the accused, after committing the murder of his wife, became nervous and he went to the clinic of P.W.1 to confess the same, but out of fear did not do so and he left the place.
13. The next piece of evidence is the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 returned to the house at about 7.00 p.m. after her work and after finishing her household chores, she was standing in front of her house along with her son Satishkumar awaiting for the return of P.W.1. At that time, according to P.W.2, the accused came there and they were talking with each other. Suddenly, the accused asked Satishkumar to bring a torch light stating that somebody passed that side and that both went to the terrace and came down and her son Satishkumar told P.W.2 that the deceased was lying dead and P.W.2 also went and saw the dead body and she found compression of her neck. When she returned back to the downstairs, the accused was not available and thereafter, P.W.1 came and she disclosed everything to him. The above evidence of P.W.2 depicts that the accused wanted to unmask the crime committed by him by taking the witnesses to the scene of crime and thereafter, left the scene without informing the witnesses, which would be admissible as it is a res gestae evidence relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
14. Another circumstance which is a strong piece of evidence is the oral extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the brothers-in-law of P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that at about 8.30 p.m., when they were on their way to the house of P.W.1, they saw the accused coming in the opposite direction. They questioned the accused as to the availability of P.W.1 in the house, for which the accused replied in the negative. Again they asked the accused why he is looking so tensed and the accused confessed to them that because of the immoral character of his wife, the deceased, he beat her and caused her death. When they asked him whether he revealed the same to P.W.1, without saying anything, he went away from the place.
15. The law is well settled on the point that the extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. The evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence and corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone and it is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence and it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. An unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity, vide GURA SINGH -vs- STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 323), State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 SCC Crl. 1965) and Sivakumar v. State [(2006) 1 SCC Crl. 470].
16. When we analyse the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, in the context of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, we could see that it comes from the mouth of the witnesses who are totally unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused and nothing concrete was elicited in the cross-examination, which may tend to indicate that the witnesses may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. Their evidence is natural, cogent, reliable and would undoubtedly convey that it was the accused who after having committed the murder of his wife, confessed the same to the witnesses and nothing was omitted by the witnesses which may militate against it. Further, it was pursuant to the information given by the above witnesses, P.W.1 went and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1, based on which, the law was set in motion. Hence, we are of the view that their evidence can be accepted as true and voluntary and hence, reliable.
17. The next piece of evidence is the recovery of nylon thali chain, M.O.3 at the instance of the accused. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer, P.W.16 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.5 and another and pursuant to the voluntary confession statement given by the accused, M.O.3 - nylon thali chain was recovered, which was found to contain hair pieces and when the same was sent for chemical examination, the hair pieces were found to be similar to the bunch of hairs sent for comparison, as is evident from Ex.P.11, chemical analyst's report. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused used the said nylon thali chain to strangulate the neck of the deceased and the witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated to the effect that they found some marks over the neck of the deceased. The doctor, P.W.8, who conducted post-mortem, has stated in his evidence that strangulation by using M.O.3 could have caused the death on account of asphyxia. Ex.P.6, the post-mortem certificate also reveals that the ligature mark found on the neck is antemortem and would have been produced by the said nylon thread. Thus, the medical evidence also fortifies that the deceased died due to strangulation by nylon thread and the said nylon thread being produced by the accused after his arrest by the investigating officer, proves the complicity of the accused in the crime.
18. It is to be remembered that the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are closely related to the accused. The fact that they are relatives to the accused and the deceased indicates that they had no reason to come out with a false version implicating the accused with the crime. The accused also did not make out any case to show that they were aggrieved against him for giving false evidence in Court; on the contrary, their evidence is supported by the other circumstances, viz., medical evidence and recovery of nylon thali chain at the instance of the accused.
19. That apart, in Column XV of the inquest report, Ex.P.20, prepared by the investigating officer in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, it is found mentioned that on hearing the information from the son of P.W.1 that the deceased left the house of P.W.1, at about 9.00 a.m. on 30.7.2004, the accused went in search of her and brought her back to the house of P.W.1. It is further stated that finding the house of P.W.1 locked, both went to the terrace and were talking to each other, which resulted in a wordy quarrel and that because the deceased left the accused and her four children to go astray and eloped with Munusamy to Bangalore and that even after she was brought back, she again eloped, the accused would have been enraged over the act of the deceased and would have strangulated the deceased with the nylon thali chain and thereby, caused her death. From the above averments found in the inquest report, it could be inferred that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased just prior to the occurrence, due to which, the accused got annoyed over the act of the deceased and caused her death by strangulation. Though the inquest report, which was prepared by the investigating officer is not admissible in nature, it was the earliest document to come into existence and from the said report, the cause of death of the deceased could be arrived at, based on which, the officer proceeded with the investigation.
20.1. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the decisions of the Apex Court on the point of admissibility of the inquest report. In Baladin v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1956 SC 181) it was observed as follows:
Statements made by prosecution witnesses before the investigating police officer being the earliest statements made by them with reference to the facts of the occurrence are valuable material for testing the veracity of the witnesses examined in court ... but the statements made during police investigation are not substantive evidence. 20.2. The above ratio has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., (1978) 2 SCC 518, wherein it has been observed that the statement in the inquest report was made by the Investigating Officer soon after the occurrence and was, therefore, the earliest statement regarding a fact which he found and observed and the earlier statement, therefore, is a valuable material for testing the veracity of the witness.
20.3. Again in George v. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605, it has been held thus:
" 30. .... Statements contained in an inquest report, to the extent they relate to what the Investigating Officer saw and found are admissible but any statement made herein on the basis of what he heard from others, would be hit by Section 162 CrPC.
31. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174(1) CrPC is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. In other words, for the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death.
(emphasis supplied)
21. It is, therefore, clear that the inquest report is not an inadmissible piece of evidence and anything found therein is a valuable material to the extent what the investigating officer saw and observed at the scene of occurrence. In the case on hand, the inquest was conducted by the investigating officer between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on 31.7.2004 and it being the first and earliest document to come into existence, could certainly give a lead to the investigating officer as to the cause of death, whether it is suicide or homicide.
22. Above all, when the above circumstances were put against the accused during his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had no explanation to offer and he made bald denial of the same, which provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances, as held by the Apex Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2000 SCC (Cri.) 926).
23. The above circumstances, in our considered opinion, manifestly demonstrate the complicity of the appellant/ accused in the commission of crime and we have no doubt at all that it was the appellant/accused alone and none else, who has caused the death of his wife Sivammal by strangulating her neck.
24. The question that is left to be decided by us is the nature of offence committed by the appellant/accused. The motive part of the occurrence, as already stated above, is the factum of infidelity of the deceased/wife. It is the categorical and cogent evidence of the witnesses that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with one Munusamy while he used to visit the house of the deceased at Kallipuram and at one point of time, the deceased eloped with the said Munusamy and lived with him at Bangalore. On coming to know about the same, the accused went to Bangalore on 25.7.2004 and brought the deceased back and out of shame, he stayed in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 instead of going to his village. It is their further evidence that on 29.7.2004, when the accused had gone to his village to leave his last son with his parents, the deceased informing the son of P.W.1 that she is going to her senior maternal aunt's house, left the house of P.W.1 and on hearing this information after return, the accused left the house of P.W.1 to bring the deceased back.
25. As already stated earlier, the inquest report, which is the earliest document prepared by the investigating officer, clearly reveals that on returning back, the accused found the house of P.W.1 locked and therefore, both went to the upstairs, where there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased with regard to the illicit intimacy that the deceased had developed with Munusamy and that even after she was brought back from Bangalore by the accused, she again eloped and thus, enraged over the act of the deceased, the accused has committed her murder. Thus, undoubtedly it is clear that due to the burning uncontrolled provocation given by the deceased because of her behaviour and due to the wordy quarrel that ensued between them at that point of time, the accused deprived of his power of self-control, with the nylon thali chain strangulated her neck and thereby, caused her death and hence, we are of the confirmed opinion that the accused is entitled to get the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. on account of sustained provocation. But, however, by strangulating the neck of the deceased, the accused had shown his intention to cause her death and hence, we are inclined to convict him under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused is modified from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and for the said conviction, he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
In result,
(i) the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.;
(ii) for the said conviction, the appellant/ accused is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment;
(iii)It is reported that the appellant/accused is on bail. The bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled forthwith and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and commit him to jail in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence;
(iv) the appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.
sra To
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. -do- Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District.
3. The District Collector, Dharmapuri.
4. The Director General of Police, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
6. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras