Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 164 (MAD)

Muthukumar @ Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu

2003-02-04

A.K.RAJAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2003
Judgment :- M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Muthukumar @ Sundaram - appellant/accused, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The deceased Selvi, who is an unmarried girl aged about 22 years, was working as a Teacher in a School at Koppanappatti village. The accused, who is a married man having children, was working as a Conductor in a bus. In course of time, the accused had developed love affair with the deceased. On coming to know of this, the wife of the accused came to the School and picked up quarrel with the deceased and informed the school authorities about the love affair between Selvi and her husband. Therefore, the deceased was removed from service. (b) In order to earn for her livelihood, the deceased used to go to several houses to take tuition for students. P.W.1/Sumathi requested the deceased to come to her house to take tuition for her children P.W.2/Suseela and another. On 29.1.1998, the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 to take tuition. P.W.1/Sumathi, on noticing that the accused smoking beedi was coming to her house, asked him as to why he was coming there. The deceased replied to her on behalf of accused that he was coming to see her only and that he would not cause any harm. Then P.W.1 left the house for taking bath. (c) Inside the house, P.W.2/Suseela and her sister alone were sitting. While the deceased was conversing with the accused, he suddenly picked up quarrel with the deceased Selvi, questioning her as to why she was not willing to marry him. At the end of the quarrel, the accused took the kerosene tin, poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and set fire to her. On seeing this ghastly sight, P.W.2 and her sister cried aloud. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. (d) P.W.1, after taking bath, came back home, and on the way, she saw the accused coming out from her house. On hearing the noise from inside the house, P.W.1 came to the house and found the victim deceased, lying with burn injuries. Then, P.W.1 came out and cried for help. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. (d) P.W.1, after taking bath, came back home, and on the way, she saw the accused coming out from her house. On hearing the noise from inside the house, P.W.1 came to the house and found the victim deceased, lying with burn injuries. Then, P.W.1 came out and cried for help. She went to the police station and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Koppanappatti Police Station. (e) In the meantime, the victim deceased was taken in a Taxi and brought to Valayapatti Hospital. P.W.9/Doctor found burn injuries all over her body and issued Ex.P.5/Wound Certificate. The deceased told him that her lover poured kerosene on her and set fire. The Doctor sent Ex.P.15/ Intimation to the police concerned. (f) On receipt of Ex.P.15, P.W.14/Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy, went to the hospital and obtained Ex.P.14/Statement from the victim deceased, attested by P.W.9/Doctor. At 7.15 p.m. he came to the Station and registered a case under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the First Information Report. (g) In the meantime, the deceased was forwarded to Madurai Rajaji Hospital, where she was admitted and treatment was also given to her. On receipt of requisition, P.W.7/Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, went to Rajaji Hospital at 9.45 p.m. and recorded Ex.P.3/Dying Declaration of Selvi between 9.50 p.m. and 10.15 p.m. It was attested by the duty Doctor. (h) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, who took up investigation, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.19/Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.18/Rough Sketch. He recovered the burnt match sticks, match box and plastic can containing kerosone and other things. On 30.1.1998 at about 2.45 p.m., he arrested the accused. (i) Since P.W.15 found injuries on the accused, he sent the accused for treatment to the Doctor. The Doctor examined the accused on 31.1.1998 at 4.10 p.m. and found burn injuries on his hands and shoulder. He issued Ex.P.6/Wound Certificate. The deceased died on 3.2.1998 at about 2.15 p.m. On receipt of death intimation, P.W.14 altered the FIR into one under Section 302 IPC. The Express Report is Ex.P.17. (j) P.W.16, Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy, who took up further investigation, went to Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. Ex.P.20 is the Inquest Report. Then he sent the the body for post-mortem. The Express Report is Ex.P.17. (j) P.W.16, Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy, who took up further investigation, went to Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. Ex.P.20 is the Inquest Report. Then he sent the the body for post-mortem. (k) P.W.11/Doctor conducted post-mortem on 4.2.1998 at about 1.30 p.m. He issued Ex.P.8/Post-mortem Certificate giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of extensive I and II decree burns and complications thereof. (l) After observing all the formalities, P.W.16 completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of the trial, on the side of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.20 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime. He stated that at the instance of one Rajan, a false case had been foisted against him. 5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder. This judgment of conviction is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 6. Mr. K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and make following contentions. The evidence adduced by the prosecution would not be sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of murder. The materials placed by the prosecution would indicate that it is a case of suicide and not of homicide. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not reliable, and the complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.14/Sub Inspector of Police has not been produced before the Court and as such, there is suppression of material evidence. Consequently, the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and therefore he has to be acquitted". 7. On the other hand, Mr. Arul, learned Government Advocate, would contend that the dying declaration recorded by P.W.7/Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and also Ex.P.14/statement given by the deceased, would make it clear that the accused only committed the offence, especially when her dying declaration is corroborated by eye-witness/P.W.2 and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed. 8. Arul, learned Government Advocate, would contend that the dying declaration recorded by P.W.7/Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and also Ex.P.14/statement given by the deceased, would make it clear that the accused only committed the offence, especially when her dying declaration is corroborated by eye-witness/P.W.2 and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and also gone through the records. 9. According to the prosecution, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased was taking tuition to P.W.2/Sumati, aged about 9 years, daughter of P.W.1. At that time, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 to see the deceased. P.W.1 saw the accused and after the deceased having told her that the accused would not cause any harm, she went out to have bath. Within a few minutes, quarrel ensued between the deceased and the accused and the accused took the kerosene can and poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire to her by throwing match stick and ran away. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2. When the accused was running away from the scene, P.W.1 saw him while she came back home after having bath. 10. The earliest document in this case is Ex.P.15/accident register, prepared by P.W.9 Doctor at about 6.00 p.m. at Vadipatti hospital. The evidence of P.W.9 and Ex.P.15, would clearly indicate that the deceased told him that a known person (her lover) poured kerosene and set fire on her. 11. At 6.15 p.m., P.W.14/Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation, went to Valayapatti Hospital and recorded Ex.P.14 Statement from the deceased at 6.30 p.m. Then, she was taken to Rajaji Hospital at about 9.30 p.m. P.W.7/Judicial Magistrate went to the Rajaji Hospital and recorded Ex.P.3/Dying Declaration, which was attested by the Doctor. All these three documents, namely Ex.P.15 - prepared at 6.00 p.m.; Ex.P.14 at 6.30 p.m.; and Ex.P.3 at 9.50 p.m., would clearly indicate that the accused only poured kerosene and set fire on her body, while she was in the house of P.W.1. 12. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased came to her house to take tuition to P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2, would clearly show that she has given clear details of the occurrence, which have been mentioned in the documents, such as Exs.P.3, P.14 and P.15. 12. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased came to her house to take tuition to P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2, would clearly show that she has given clear details of the occurrence, which have been mentioned in the documents, such as Exs.P.3, P.14 and P.15. Though she is a child witness of 9 years, from the answers obtained from her by the trial Court, it is clearly seen that she is able to understand the questions and give the relevant answers. Therefore, there is no reason to reject her evidence which is clearly corroborated by the documentary evidence. 13. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out, in view of the statement given by the accused to P.W.10/Doctor. As per Ex.P.6, he tried to extinguish the fire and attempted to save the life of the deceased. This contention, in our view, is not in any way helpful to the accused, in the light of the fact that P.W.11/Doctor, who gave opinion that death of the deceased was due to burn injuries, has not at all been cross-examined by the accused in this line. 14. It is not the case of the prosecution that any other complaint was obtained from any other witness except the statement from the deceased obtained by P.W.14 at 6.30 p.m. It is true that P.W.1 admits that she gave a statement, which was reduced into writing in the Police Station. To such admission, no suggestion has been put to P.W.14, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police. Moreover, getting some stray statement from P.W.1 in relation to the occurrence would not be of any use to prosecution, since P.W.1 is not the eye witness. On the other hand, in this case, the victim herself has given the dying declaration to Doctor at about 6.00 p.m.; to the Sub-Inspector of Police at 6.30 p.m.; and to the Judicial Magistrate at about 9.30 p.m., that the accused had caused burn injuries on her, by pouring kerosene and set fire on her. 15. In view of the above materials, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence available on record is sufficient to hold that the accused only had caused burn injuries, which resulted in the death of the deceased. 15. In view of the above materials, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence available on record is sufficient to hold that the accused only had caused burn injuries, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court are perfectly justified. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused.