Madras High Court
Mani @ Manikandan vs The State Rep. By on 3 November, 2009
Bench: M.Chockalingam, V. Periya Karuppiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.197 of 2009 Mani @ Manikandan .. Appellant Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tirupur, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.243 of 2007) .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge (Fast Track Judge No.4), Coimbatore at Tirupur, made in S.C.No.274 of 2008 dated 30.1.2009. For Appellant : Mr.V.Bhiman for Mr.D.T.Janarthanan For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, APP J U D G M E N T
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District cum Sessions Division (Fast Track Court No.4), Coimbatore at Tirupur, made in S.C.No.274 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 177 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively along with fine and default sentence.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Muthulakshmi. P.W.9 is the father of the deceased. When the deceased was working in a telephone booth at Pollachi, she developed intimacy with the accused. When the business carried on by the accused went on loss, the accused left the place along with the deceased and came to Tirupur and both were living together. During the relevant time, the accused was employed in the Bakery of P.W.7. The accused and the deceased were residing in a row of houses where P.Ws.3 and 4, husband and wife occupied a house and P.W.5 and P.W.10 occupied the houses each. On the date of occurrence., that was on 22.4.2007, as usual the accused went for job. He got leave from P.W.7 at 1.30 p.m. and came home from there. P.Ws.2 and 5 witnessed the accused who came to the house at 1.30 p.m. and left the house after some time.
(b) On the date of occurrence, when P.W.10 was in his house, a lady came over there and enquired about the deceased stating that she came to give a sum of Rs.200/- to the deceased which was given by her employer. Since P.W.10 noticed the house of the deceased locked outside, he told her to hand it over to P.W.3 who in turn would hand over the same to the deceased. Accordingly, she gave the money and went away. During night hours at about 8.00 p.m. on the same day, the accused raised alarm as if his wife was found dead. All of them gathered there. The accused informed that he found a saree around the neck of his wife and found her dead. P.W.1 was also informed and she came there and found the dead body of her daughter at about 10.00 p.m. on 22.4.2007.
(c) On 23.4.2007, when P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty in Tirupur South Police Station, at about 3.00 a.m., the accused appeared before him and gave Ex.P4 report. On the strength of Ex.P4 report, a case came to be registered directly under Section 302 I.P.C. The express F.I.R. Ex.P5 was dispatched to Court.
(d) P.W.18, Inspector of Police of that circle, on receipt of the F.I.R. went to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.1. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.8 inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.17, doctor attached to Tirupur Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave opinion in the post mortem certificate, Ex.P.6 that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation.
(e) Pending investigation, on 15.5.2007, when P.W.12, Ward councillor was in his office , the accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement and the same was recorded. P.W.12, immediately took the accused to the Police Station. P.W.15 Head Constable arrested the accused. The accused gave confessional statement and the same was recorded by P.W.15. The document given by P.W.12 was produced before the Court. The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to analysing and the reports were received and produced before the Court. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.
(f) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied on 11 exhibits and 7 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty under sections 302 and 177 I.P.C. and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of appellant.
3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, hence, relied on the circumstantial evidence but miserably failed to place or prove necessary circumstances as per law. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 22.4.2007 in the evening hours. In the instant case, as usual, the accused who came there from work at 10.00 p.m. found the dead body of his wife and informed to others and also P.W.1 and then he went to the police station at 3.00 a.m. and gave Ex.P4 report. On the strength of which, a case came to be registered directly for murder and when the investigation was on, he was also kept in custody for number of days but the police could not find out the person who did the offence but they prepared number of documents as if the appellant has role to play in the crime. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were shown as husband and wife, were actually neighbours of the accused. According to P.W.2, he was not able to say at what time the accused came to the place of occurrence. P.W.3 could not come with a proper evidence. So far as P.W.5 was concerned, according to him, he saw the accused at 2.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence but in the cross examination, his evidence is shaky. So far as P.W.7 was concerned, she was the employer of the accused. According to her, the accused got permission at 1.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and nowhere she has stated that he returned to work thereafter. These are all the circumstances as to the last seen theory but all these remain shaky. The learned counsel would further submit that the dead body was found at 10.00 p.m. by the accused and there was a long interval. P.W.8 was examined as if the deceased had some illicit intimacy with him. The examination of P.W.8 did not prove that the accused entertained suspicion about his wife.
4. Added further learned counsel, according to the prosecution, they have a strong case by examining P.W.12. The accused appeared before P.W.12 on 15.5.2007 and gave confessional statement and the same was recorded and was also produced before the investigating officer along with the accused, but the prosecution has not produced the so called confessional statement which was fatal to the prosecution case. According to the investigator, the inquest report was prepared between 5.00 a.m and 8.30 a.m. on 23.4.2007. A reading of the inquest report would clearly indicate about the involvement of the accused in the crime and that the accused entertained suspicion on the conduct of the wife. But actually nobody knew about the affair or alleged suspicion of the accused. Further, as per the evidence of the investigating officer, the dead body was subjected to post mortem only after the inquest was over but the name of the accused was actually not mentioned in the requisition letter for post mortem which would clearly indicate the fact that the inquest report has come into existence belatedly.
5. Another strong circumstances in favour of the accused before the trial Court is that all the statements along with the inquest report reached the Court only on 18.5.2007 which was subsequent to the alleged confessional statement made to P.W.12 on 15.5.2007. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and found the accused guilty. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied on the following judgments.
(i) 2008 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 76 (Ramakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police)
(ii) 2004 (1) CTC 14 ( Madana Gopal v. State)
(iii) 2008(3) MLJ Crl. 1287 (Krishnamurthy v. State)
(iv) 2007(1) SCC (Crl.) 80 (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Mahashtra)
7. The Court heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
8. It is not in controversy that the dead body of the deceased who is the daughter of P.W.1 was found in the house where she was staying with the accused/appellant on the night hours on 22.4.2007. It was the accused who gave a complaint at 3.00 a.m. on 23.4.2007, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered directly for murder. The autopsy was conducted on the dead body by P.W.17, doctor and he has given opinion that the deceased would have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or before this Court. Hence, it is proved that the deceased died out of homicidal violence and there is no impediment for this Court in recording so as rightly done by the trial Court.
9. It is true in order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant/accused that it was he who had committed the death of his wife and also suppressed the fact of crime, the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. The Court is unmindful of the caution made by the Apex Court and also the settled principles of law that in a given case where the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove necessary circumstances pointing to the hypotheses that except the accused no one could have committed the offence. In the instant case, even after applying the test, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, since the following circumstances are noticed.
10. During the relevant time, the accused and the deceased were living together, this fact was spoken to by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10. This fact was never disputed by the appellant before the Trial Court. According to P.W.8, he was a distant relative of the deceased and that he was a native of Pollachi, that the deceased went to Tirupur along with the accused and was living with him, that he used to go there and talk with the deceased in public place and that the accused had an occasion to notice the same and warned him that he should not talk with his wife. This part of the evidence of P.W.8 was not cross examined by the appellant. Under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.8 was intact.
11. Further, according to P.W.7, he was the owner of the bakery in which the accused worked at the relevant time. Even in the complaint, Ex.P4 given by the accused, there is averment to the effect, that he was employed in the Bakery of P.W.7. When P.W.7 was examined in Court, he has categorically deposed that the accused was employed in his shop and on the date of occurrence, that was on 22.4.2007, the accused sought leave at 1.30 p.m. and left the shop and on the same day night, he received a call from the accused that his wife was murdered. This evidence of P.W.7 would clearly indicate that the accused had left the Bakery shop at 1.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and did not return back to the shop. This fact coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 would clearly reveal that the accused went to the house at or about the time of occurrence.
12. The time of death of the deceased Muthulakshmi is more important in this case. The post mortem doctor P.W.17 has given information clearly stating that the deceased died out of asphyxia due to strangulation between 24 and 26 prior to autopsy. The time and cause of death as put forth by the medical person was never disputed. According to the medical person, the death has taken place at or about 2.00 p.m. on 22.4.2007. P.W.7 has stated that the accused obtained leave on that day at 1.30 p.m. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 has seen the deceased at 1.30 p.m and saw the accused at 2.00 p.m. and thereafter the accused left the place. According to P.W.5, the accused was present and he actually entered into his house during the relevant time. P.W.7 was examined before the court and cross examined to the effect that the accused was never employed under P.W.7 which is nothing but falsehood. Further, P.W.7 has categorically stated that the accused got leave at 1.30 p.m. on that day. According to the report Ex.P4 given by the accused, he came from the job at 10.00 p.m. This would indicate the fact that after committing the offence, he hid himself and came back about 10.00 p.m. and opened the door of the house and enacted a drama as if somebody had gone inside his house and murdered his wife.
13. In the instant case, the accused got leave from P.W.7 at 1.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and he was actually last seen by the above said witnesses at about 1.30 p.m. at the place of occurrence in which the accused and the deceased were living together and the time of death canvassed through the medical opinion, all put together would indicate that except the accused no one could have committed the offence. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that it would be suffice to hold that it was the accused who has committed the crime. The contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant, even assuming to be acceptable, in the considered opinion of the Court, does not have any weight at all. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant will not have application to the present facts of the case.
14. It was the case originally registered under section 302 I.P.C. and the investigating officer has prepared the inquest report and the same has reached the Court. The confessional statement was recorded by P.W.12 from the accused on 15.5.2007 itself and P.W.12 was also examined for that purpose. P.W.12, ward councillor should not have come before the Court to give such a false evidence. Apart from that, P.W.12 has categorically stated that he knew the accused earlier. It is true, the prosecution has not produced the confessional statement recorded by P.W.12. Hence, the prosecution could not rely on that part of the evidence. Even baring that evidence, the Court has sufficient evidence. According to the evidence of P.W.7, on the date of occurrence, the accused got leave at 1.30 p.m. from the Bakery. From his evidence, it would be quite clear that the accused went to the house at 2.00 p.m. and he was there for some time and thereafter, he left the house and came back at 10.00 p.m. In such circumstances, the interregnum period i.e., from the time he left the house till the time he came back to his house, where he was, is within the knowledge of the accused and it was the accused who could explain that circumstance, but he had no explanation to offer. Hence, it can be well stated that this particular link, which is missing, is well within the knowledge of the accused and he has no explanation to offer which would indicate that it was the accused who had committed the crime.
15. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that it was the accused who had committed the crime of causing the death of his wife Muthulakshmi and escaped therefrom. He has given a false complaint as if he has no knowledge about the murder of his wife. Therefore, the trial Court is perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty under Sections 302 and 177 I.P.C. and awarding life sentence and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
16. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
Vsi To
1. The Additional District cum Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Judge No.4), Coimbatore at Tirupur
2. The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai