Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: THIRUVANNAMALAI in Thangarasu vs The State on 17 January, 2018Matching Fragments
2. Facts in brief:-
2.1. The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased-
Vasanthi. Two children were born out of their wedlock. It was a love marriage. The appellant developed an intimacy with one Manimegalai, who has not been examined. In view of the said relationship, he demanded the deceased-Vasanthi to sign the blank divorce papers. On her refusal, on http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2018 07.08.2016 at about 12.30p.m., he poured Kerosene and set her on fire and thereafter, locked the house and left with the children. On hearing the noise, P.W.1, the father of the deceased came to the house and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, and admitted her at about 2.50p.m. A complaint statement given by the deceased in the hospital was registered by P.W.16-Akilan, the Sub Inspector of Police at 3.30p.m. Thereafter, at 7.30 p.m., he came to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2016 of Manalurpet Police Station under Section 307 IPC and the complaint statement was marked as Ex.P15. On receipt of the requisition from P.W.16-Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.9, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai, has recorded Ex.P5- dying declaration of the deceased at 6.40p.m. On the same day, at about 8.15 p.m., on receipt of the First Information Report-Ex.P16 from P.W.16- Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.17-Jeyavel-Inspector of Police, took up the investigation further and recorded the statement of the deceased, which was not marked. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries and died in the hospital on 08.08.016 at 7.20a.m. After completion of the investigation, P.W.17-Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet altering the offence punishable under Sections 302, 342 and 498-A IPC.
2.5. P.W.7-Ramakrishnan is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.8-Govindan is the witness, who knows the deceased. All these witnesses ventured above (P.Ws.1 to 8) have turned hostile. http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2018 2.6. P.W.9-Viswanathan is the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Thiruvannamalai District, who recorded the dying declaration under Ex.P5. He has stated to have got the intimation from P.W.16 at about 6.15p.m., and arrived at the hospital at 6.40p.m., and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. In his evidence he has admitted that no crime number was mentioned and the written request was not marked. In this connection, it is to be noted that P.W.16-Sub Inspector of Police has deposed that he has not intimated P.W.9-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai, for recording the dying declaration and the intimation has been given from the Hospital itself.
2.12. P.W.16-Akilan is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Manalurpet. While he was on duty on 07.08.2016, he went to the Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, at about 3.30.p.m. and received a complaint given by the deceased-Vasanthi, who was under treatment. In his cross examination, he deposed that he had not given intimation to P.W.9-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, to record the dying declaration under Ex.P5. It is his evidence that intimation had been given to P.W.9 by the Hospital. He has further stated that upon receiving the statement of the deceased at about 3.30 p.m., he registered the complaint in Crime No.206 of 2016 of Manalurpet Police Station under Section 307 IPC only at 7.30p.m., and the same was marked as Ex.P15. Thereafter, he sent the the same along with the complaint to the P.W.17-Inspector of Police for http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2018 further investigation. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he recorded the complaint statement at about 6.30p.m., and thereafter registered the same at 7.30p.m. He accepted the fact that in column No.12 of the First Information Report about the time of intimation received from the Government Hospital as 6.30p.m. He admitted in his evidence that in the complaint statement recorded, the signature of the duty Doctor has not been obtained. He has further deposed that the dying declaration was recorded by P.W.9 after getting intimation from the Hospital, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.9. P.W.16 further deposed that in the dying declaration, the time of intimation to P.W.9 has been recorded as 6.15 p.m. It is his further admission that P.W.9 has been informed even before recording Ex.P15-complaint statement of the deceased. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.16, it is clear that he has not obtained any permission from the Doctor to record Ex.P5-Dying Declaration.
5.Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the motive has not been proved. The person with whom the appellant was alleged to have relationship has not been examined. All the witnesses starting from P.W.1 to P.W.8 had turned hostile. P.W.1 even stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., that the deceased told him that she herself poured kerosene. The dying declaration stated to have been given by the deceased is highly doubtful. There is no clear finding with respect to the intimation given to the Judicial Magistrate No,II, Thiruvannamalai by P.W.16-Sub Inspector of Police. Though P.W.13- Dr.Puviyarasan joined duty at 7.30p.m., on 07.08.2016, the dying declaration has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai District, at 6.40p.m., itself with his signature and prior certification about her consciousness. If the appellant had locked the deceased inside, it was not known as to how she came out from the http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2018 house. It is improbable that after the occurrence, the appellant had taken the two children and left. Though the children are aged about 6 and 3 years, there was no evidence to show that P.W.17-Investigating Officer had examined them. The entire occurrence is highly improbable. Certainly, the children would have shouted on seeing the occurrence. They never seen while their mother was dying. There is unexplained delay for giving intimation to the police by P.W.12-duty Doctor, though the time of admission has been mentioned as 2.50p.m., in Ex.P8 Accident Register but the was intimation given to the police only at 6.30p.m. There is material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.9-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai and P.W.16-Sub Inspector of police The evidence of P.W.14-Dr.Kamalakannan has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. The confession statement has been given in the presence of the police. The recovery made is also doubtful. While P.W.10-Village Administrative Officer has stated that Ex.P6-admissible portion of confession statement of the appellant/accused dated 08.08.2016 and Ex.P7-Seizure Mahazar dated 08.08.2016 were signed in his office, P.W.11-Village Assistant has stated he signed in Ex.P6 in the police station. The trial court has not considered these discrepancies. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.