Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 would show that at the relevant period Gouri was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. She was taken to her paternal home at Pathakkara on 18-1-1989. The evidence of PW-5 would show that on 12-2-1989 PW-5 went to her tarwad house at Mankada, and Gouri and accused later joined her at Mankada. She said that at about 8 a.m. accused went out saying that he was going to Perintalmanna for work, that he returned by about 1 p.m. and said that his sister and children from Madras have arrived at Yakkara and hence they have to go to Yakkara. According to PW-5 they reached Perintalmanna bus stand at about 3 p.m. and accused and Gouri left for Palakkad by bus. PW-6, the brother of the accused though was declared hostile said, on 13-2-1989 at about 7 p.m. Gouri and accused came to his house. On 14-2-1989 at about 9 a.m. PW-1 informed PW-2 as to dead-bodies of a woman and a child were lying near the burial ground in Yakkara and both went there and found the dead-bodies. The evidence thus would show that Gouri was seen last in the company of the accused at about 7 p.m. on 13-2-1989, and her dead-body was found in the early morning of 14-2-1989 in a burial ground with fatal injuries.

22. According to the prosecution the occurrence was at about 10.30 p.m. on 13-2-1989 and the scene was the burial ground at Yakkara. It is an admitted case that the sister of the accused never came to Yakkara from Madras. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, that would lead to the conclusion, particularly in the context of the motive, that it was a pretext by the accused to isolate Gouri to a lonely place that he told her and PW-5 on 13-2-1989 at about 3 p.m. that they are going to Yakkara to meet his sister and children who had arrived there from Madras. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the nature of the injuries sustained by Gouri and the foetus, and also the features obtained at the scene of occurrence. The very scene of occurrence is familiar to the accused as he was hailing from Yakkara whereas Gouri was a native of Perintalmanna. Since Gouri was seen alive in the company of the accused at about 7 p.m. on 13-2-1989 and her dead-body was found on the next morning, it is certain that the death took place in the night of 13-2-1989. The cause of death was the injuries sustained by her at the burial ground. A young woman who is in advanced stage of pregnancy will not dare to visit a desolate place like a burial ground unless she was led and guided to that place by a person in whom she has confidence and faith. Evidently she could not have known that she was being led to a burial ground.

24. Accused was arrested by PW-16 at about 5 p.m. on 14-2-1989 at Waltex Road in front of Lakshmi Bhavan Lodge, Madras as he was found in suspicious circumstance. PW-16 said that on seeing the police the accused took to his heels. PW-16 took him to the police station and registered Ext.P 10 F.I.R. of the C2 Elephant Gate Police Station under Section 41(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. and produced the accused before the Magistrate with Ext.P-11 remand report. PW-16 said that when he questioned the accused, he came to know of his involvement in a crime in Palakkad and therefore, through Wireless he informed the police at Palakkad about the arrest. It was thereafter, PW-18, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakkad went to Madras and filed Ext.P-13 report before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate who directed to produce the accused before the Magistrate at Palakkad. At this juncture it would be enough to note that, the accused was found at Madras at about 5 p.m. on 14-2-1989, he was arrested by PW-16 and was produced before the Magistrate with Ext.P-11 remand report. On the 13th the accused was in Palakkad and on the 14th at 5 p.m. he was in Madras. PW-14 a practicing lawyer at Palakkad said that, he is residing at West Yakkara about half a kilometer away from the burial ground and that on 13-2-1989 at about 11 p.m. the accused came to his house; he was not cross-examined. At about 7 p.m. on 13-2-1989 the deceased was seen in the company of the accused, at about 11 p.m. on the same day the accused came to the house of PW-14 alone, the dead-body of Gouri was found in the burial ground in the early morning of 14-2-1989, and at about 5 p.m. on 14-2-1989 the accused was found in suspicious circumstance by PW-16, Inspector of Police attached to the C2 Elephant Gate Police Station, Madras. If this piece of evidence is accepted, the same brings out a highly incriminating circumstance against the accused inasmuch as the same would show that the accused absconded after the occurrence.

32. The evidence of PW 9 along with that of PW 19 would show that the accused led the police to the paddy field near the burial ground and pointed out the knife which was seen lying abandoned on the bund of the paddy field and was seized under Ext. P7. Thus, M.O. 27 was recovered as pointed out by the accused. This has got enough corroboration from the evidence of PWs. 9 and 10. The evidence would show that the place from where M.O. 27 was recovered was near the burial ground. The very character and nature of the place is such that the same was not frequented by others. Though the confession of the accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the very conduct of the accused in leading the police to the said place and pointing out the place of concealment of M.O. 27 is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in the decision in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 400 : (1979 Cri LJ 329) held that the evidence of the circumstance that the accused led to the police officer and pointed out the place where the weapon which might have been used in the commission of the offence were found hidden would be admissible as conduct, under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus the seizure of M.O. 23 shirt that belonged to the accused which had human blood stain, and M.Os. 26 and 27 sold to the accused by PW 10 are circumstances which would support the prosecution case.