Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1429 (MAD)

M. Ekambaram v. State of Tamil Nadu

2004-10-29

M.THANIKACHALAM, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2004
Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2002 made in Sessions Case No.148 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, whereunder the appellant herein, sole accused was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., in connection with the occurrence said to have taken place at about 4.00 a.m., on 11.08.2001 in Arunachaladevar Street, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore, within the jurisdiction of Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District, for having said to have murdered his wife Shenbagavalli and caused disappearance of evidence of offence. 2.1. The case of the prosecution was built up on the complaint lodged by P.W.1 to P.W.12, Inspector of Police, P7 Ramanathapuram Police Station, on 11.8.2001, which was subsequently marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 is nonetheless the cousin of the deceased. Based on the complaint (Ex.P1), First Information Report (Ex.P13) was registered by P.W.12. 2.2. The story of the prosecution is narrated as follows: Accused was working as a teacher. As there was no issue out of the wedlock between the accused and his first wife, a teacher, the accused divorced his first wife and married the deceased, who was a leader in Thamilagha Munnettra Kazhagam (Women's Wing). P.W.2 Murugesan is the District Head of the said Kazhagam. P.W.7 is fruit seller, who had contacts with the deceased by borrowing money from the deceased. P.W.8 is also associated with the said Kazhagam. The deceased suspected illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4, a teacher, and therefore, frequent quarrels arose between the accused and the deceased, as spoken by P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. 2.3. On 10.8.2001 P.W.7 went to the house of the deceased to borrow money on interest from the deceased and the deceased asked him to wait for the arrival of the accused. As soon as the accused came to the house, both the deceased and the accused quarreled with each other and therefore, the deceased asked P.W.7 to come on the next day for the money. 2.4. On 10.8.2001 night also, P.W.5, who was residing near the house of the accused saw the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other. On the next day, viz., on 11.8.2001 morning, the accused came to the house of P.W.5 and informed him that his wife slipped down in bathroom and died on the spot. 2.4. On 10.8.2001 night also, P.W.5, who was residing near the house of the accused saw the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other. On the next day, viz., on 11.8.2001 morning, the accused came to the house of P.W.5 and informed him that his wife slipped down in bathroom and died on the spot. As the accused did not have petrol in his vehicle, he used P.W.5's cycle to inform about the death of the deceased to his relatives. 2.5. On information about the death of the deceased from the accused at 10.30 a.m. on 11.8.2001, P.W.1 and his wife went to the house of the accused and found that the deceased was lying in the front room of the house and an adhesive plaster was pasted in the middle of her forehead, where blood was oozing out and lips were torn. P.W.1 saw the articles in the next room were found scattered. P.W.1 also observed blood stains in the bathroom, where a grinding stone was tied up with a green colour bag and blood clots were found at the bottom portion of the same. 2.6. Similarly on information about the death of the deceased from the accused at 11.00 am on 11.8.2001, P.Ws.2 and 6 came to the house of the accused. P.Ws.2 and 6 had also seen bloodstains in the bathroom and the grinding stone. When P.W.6 questioned the accused as to the occurrence as well as the reason for not taking the deceased to the hospital, the accused replied that the deceased died on the spot. 2.7. Since the deceased asked P.W.7 on 10.8.2001 to come on the next day to collect money, P.W.7 went to the deceased house on 11.8.2001 and found the deceased dead. 2.8. P.W.1, suspecting the death of the deceased, dictated a complaint to his wife and the said complaint Ex.P1 was, thereafter, lodged by P.W.1 to P.W.12 at 11.30 a.m. on 11.8.2001. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.451 of 2001 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.13 is the printed copy of the F.I.R. 2.9. Immediately thereafter, P.W.12 undertook the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), a Rough Sketch (Ex.P14), conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, prepared inquest report (Ex.P15) and thus proceeded with the investigation. 2.10. Immediately thereafter, P.W.12 undertook the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), a Rough Sketch (Ex.P14), conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, prepared inquest report (Ex.P15) and thus proceeded with the investigation. 2.10. P.W.12, Investigating Officer recovered the following material objects from the scene of occurrence viz., M.O.1 - blood stained grinding stone (under mahazar Ex.P.3); M.O.2 - blood stained towel (under mahazar Ex.P.5); M.O.3 - blood stained gunny bag (under mahazar Ex.P.4); M.O.4 - a receipt of Thilak Finance Pawn Brokers (under mahazar Ex.P.7); and M.O.5 - blood stained white colour sleeveless banian (under mahazar Ex.P.6). 2.11. All the above material objects were recovered in the presence of P.W.8. 2.12. That apart, photographs were taken and the same were marked with negatives in M.O.6 series. The said photographs were taken by one Ulaganathan, who was examined as P.W.11. 2.13. The following are the other material objects recovered by a woman police constable Eswari, who also prepared a report of recovery marked as Ex.P16. M.O.7 - blood stained red colour inskirt; M.O.8 - blood stained orange colour blouse; M.O.9 - blood stained white colour brassier; M.O.10 series - Yellow colour thali rope with gold gundu and 2 gold pipes in the thali; M.O.11 series - one pair of gold studs; M.O.12 - gold nose stud; M.O.13 series - one pair of brass bangles; and M.O.14 series - silver metti 4 numbers. 2.14. After the recovery of the said material objects, P.W.12 made a requisition, for sending the material objects for chemical analysis, and accordingly, the same were forwarded through the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, by a letter dated 28.8.2001, which was marked as Ex.P17. 2.15. The body of the deceased was then sent for post mortem with a requisition marked as Ex.P.8, through a woman Police Constable, who handed over the body of the deceased to Dr.Sundararajan, attached to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. 2.16. Dr.Sundararajan conducted post mortem, and was also examined as P.W.9, through whom post mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P9. The relevant portion in Ex.P.9, which speaks about the injuries on the body of the deceased, reads as follows: (1) Abrasions reddish in colour seen over the following regions 2 x 1.5 c.m. Over right ingra orbital regfion. 2.16. Dr.Sundararajan conducted post mortem, and was also examined as P.W.9, through whom post mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P9. The relevant portion in Ex.P.9, which speaks about the injuries on the body of the deceased, reads as follows: (1) Abrasions reddish in colour seen over the following regions 2 x 1.5 c.m. Over right ingra orbital regfion. 1 x 0.5 c.m. And 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. Over right cheek and 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. Over lobule of right ear. (2) 9 x 7 c.m. Superficial contusion seen over antero medial aspect of lower third of left arm reddish in colour. (3) 7 x 6 c.m. Superficial contusion reddish in colour seen over the posterior aspect of lower third of right arm. (4) Oblique lacerated injury over right side of upper lip close to philtrum measuring 1 x 1 c.m. Of full thickness. (5) Oblique lacerated muscle deep injury 2 c.m. Lateral to philtrum in the right side of upper lip measuring 0.5 c.m. X 0.25 c.m. (6) Oblique lacerated muscle deep injury seen just lateral to the injury No.5 measuring 0.75 x 0.25 c.m. (7) Oblique lacerated injury over left side of forehead extending into the middle of forehead measuring 8 x 2 c.m. bone deep. The lower outer end of the wound is 4.5 c.m. From the nasion. The upper end of the wound is 7 c.ms above the nation. (8) Oblique lacerated injury over right side of occipital region measuring 2.5 x 0.5 c.m. bone deep. The upper outer end of the wound is 10 c.m. from the right mastoid process and the lower inner end is 11.5 c.ms from the right mastoid process. (9) Antero posteriorly oblique lacerated bone deep injury over left parietal region close to midline measuring 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. The anterior outer end is 16 c.m from left mastoid process and posterior inner end is 17 c.m from left mastoid process. 2.17. Ex.P.10 is the viscera report. After receiving Ex.P.10, P.W.9 Doctor, gave his final opinion marked as Ex.P11, that the deceased would have died of head injuries sustained by her. 2.18. On the next day i.e. 12.8.2001 the accused surrendered before P.W.12 and gave an extra judicial confession statement. 2.17. Ex.P.10 is the viscera report. After receiving Ex.P.10, P.W.9 Doctor, gave his final opinion marked as Ex.P11, that the deceased would have died of head injuries sustained by her. 2.18. On the next day i.e. 12.8.2001 the accused surrendered before P.W.12 and gave an extra judicial confession statement. On his complaint that the deceased bit him and therefore, he sustained injuries, the accused was sent to the Hospital, where P.W.10, Dr.Sivakumar found four simple injuries on the accused and treated him as certified in Ex.P.12, a copy of the Accident Register. 2.19. Ex.P19 is the chemical analysis report and Exs.P20 and P21 are serologist reports. 2.20. P.W.12 completed the investigation on 31.08.2001 and laid the final report against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. 3. Since the accused denied the charges levelled against him, he was tried in S.C.No.148 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 4.1. On behalf of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined, through whom 21 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and 14 Material Objects were produced as M.O.1 to M.O.14. 4.2. P.W.1 is the cousin of the deceased, who spoke about the illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4. P.W.1 confirms that he found blood stains on the dead body as well as on the material objects, viz., M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian). 4.3. P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 8 also spoke about the bloodstains found on the dead body and on the said material objects, viz., M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian). 4.4. P.W.3 is a Pawn Broker, from whom the accused received a sum of Rs.5200/- by pledging a gold chain on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.8.2001. 4.5. P.W.5 is a neighbour, who spoke about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day of the occurrence, viz., on 10.8.2001. 4.6. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem, through whom Post Mortem certificate, Ex.P9 and final opinion Ex.P12 were marked. 4.7. P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated the accused for simple injuries found on the body as per Ex.P12, viz., accident register. 4.8. P.W.11 is the Photographer. 4.9. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. 5. 4.6. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem, through whom Post Mortem certificate, Ex.P9 and final opinion Ex.P12 were marked. 4.7. P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated the accused for simple injuries found on the body as per Ex.P12, viz., accident register. 4.8. P.W.11 is the Photographer. 4.9. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. 5. After the trial, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he pleaded not guilty and also examined two witnesses, viz., D.W.1 and D.W.2, on his side and marked three documents, viz., Exs.D1 to D3. Ex.D1 is the extract of the marriage registration certificate between the accused and the deceased. D.W.1 is Dr.Santhanakrishnan, who spoke about the treatment given to the deceased for diabetics and Ex.D2 is the Medical Card and Ex.D3 is the prescription given to the deceased. D.W.2, Hariprasad is the second son of the accused who deposed that on the date of occurrence, his mother, while going to the bathroom, slipped down and due to head injuries, she died on the spot and his parents loved each other. D.W.2 also deposed that his mother, namely the deceased, was suffering from diabetics and she used to faint often due to giddiness; that his father and other relatives were present at the burial ground at the time of last rites; and that his father is taking care of them at present. 6. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, the above appeal. 7. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him on the following grounds:- (i) there is no evidence to prove the motive behind the crime, viz., the accused was having illicit intimacy with P.W.4. Hence, the above appeal. 7. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him on the following grounds:- (i) there is no evidence to prove the motive behind the crime, viz., the accused was having illicit intimacy with P.W.4. Our attention was invited to the statement of P.W.1 that he came to know about the intimacy between the accused and P.W.4 only through the deceased and he did not know P.W.4 personally; (ii) the prosecution failed to examine the children of the accused who were present at the time of occurrence; (iii) the evidence of P.W.5 to establish the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day of occurrence cannot be relied upon as he was not in good terms with the family of the accused; and (iv) P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued Ex.P9, postmortem certificate, had not expressed any opinion about the cause of death and only after receiving Ex.P.10 viscera report, he had deposed that the deceased died due to head injuries inflicted by the accused. 8.1. Mr.A.N.Thambithurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on the other hand, justified the conviction of the appellant as well as the punishment imposed on him, as the same is based on the evidence of P.W.1, who is the cousin of the deceased and he had no reason to foist a false case against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 also corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6, who spoke about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused due to the illegal intimacy of the accused with P.W.4. Our attention was also invited to the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem and issued Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and final opinion (Ex.P11), which corroborates with each other, leading to the unshakable inference that the death was due to the head injuries sustained by the deceased by M.O.1, which contained blood stains. 8.2. Our attention was also invited to the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem and issued Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and final opinion (Ex.P11), which corroborates with each other, leading to the unshakable inference that the death was due to the head injuries sustained by the deceased by M.O.1, which contained blood stains. 8.2. It was seriously contended by the learned Government Advocate that since the prosecution proved that the accused and the deceased along with three children alone were present in the house during the occurrence, the accused alone had inflicted injuries on the deceased causing the death of the deceased, taking note of the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as the recovery of M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian). 8.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also drew our attention to the injuries found on the body of the deceased, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, which corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, who deposed that they saw the oozing of blood on the dead body and bloodstains on the material objects, viz. M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian). 9. We have given our deep consideration to the submissions of both sides. 10. The case of the prosecution is not based on the direct evidence or eye witness, but based on circumstantial evidence. Since every circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution has a probative link for a safe conviction, the same must not only satisfy the test of reasonability, but should also confirm on certainty. The circumstance relied upon in support of conviction must, therefore, be fully established and the weight of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete. Therefore, the link in the chain should be fully established to a conclusive nature, but not on mere suspicion to hold the accused guilty. In other words, all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the author of the crime. Therefore, the link in the chain should be fully established to a conclusive nature, but not on mere suspicion to hold the accused guilty. In other words, all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the author of the crime. Therefore, when the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, each and every incriminating substances must be clearly established by a reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances must be proved from a chain of evidence, from which only irresistible conclusion for the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn. Hence, we are inclined to analyse the evidence microscopically to satisfy ourselves as to the chain of the circumstances that led to the only inference of the guilt of the accused without any break in the link. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 would show that as soon as they knew about the death of the deceased, they went to the place of occurrence and saw the body of the deceased lying in front room of the house and the dead body was covered with sarees, an adhesive plaster was pasted on the forehead of the deceased, blood was oozing from the head, lips were torn, both nostrils plugged with cotton, articles were found scattered in the next room, bloodstains in the bathroom, blood was clotted in the foot mat and bloodstain was found on the washing stone. The further evidence of P.W.1 would clearly show that the grinding stone was not in the grinder and the same was tied up with a green colour towel and there were blood clots at the bottom of the grinding stone. When P.W.1 was suspecting the death, the accused hurried to bury the dead body, but P.W.1 went to the police station and gave complaint (Ex.P.1) to P.W.12. The further evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 would show that there was illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4. 12. It was also well established through the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night, viz., 10.8.2001, which formed the basis for committing the crime. The further evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 would show that there was illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4. 12. It was also well established through the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night, viz., 10.8.2001, which formed the basis for committing the crime. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.5 with respect to the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night viz., 10.08.2001, merely because he was not in good terms with the accused family, as the said statement of P.W.5 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.7. 13. When P.W.6 questioned the accused as to why he did not take the deceased immediately to the hospital, the accused replied that he was alone at home and that the deceased fell down due to giddiness, sustained head injuries and died immediately and therefore, he did not take her to the hospital. 14. The evidence of P.W.9, doctor, who conducted the postmortem, through whom Ex.P.9 was marked, clearly shows that if a person slipped in a bathroom, he/she would not sustain injuries as found in Ex.P.9, details of which were referred to above. The evidence of P.W.9 is clear as to the gravity of injuries sustained by the deceased. The nature of injuries described in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) would clearly go to show that by slipping down one would not have got multiple head injuries. 15. The simple injuries found on the body of the accused as spoken by P.W.10 in the light of the accident register (Ex.P12) further substantiates the case of the prosecution that there was a quarrel and fight between the accused and the deceased. 16. A collective reading of the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would reveal that there was a illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4, which gave a cause for frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased; and the accused was so indifferent towards the deceased to the extent that he did not even care to take the deceased to the hospital after she sustained grievous injuries on the fateful night. The opinion of P.W.9, the Doctor would confirm that the injuries sustained by the deceased would not have been caused by a single act of slip. The opinion of P.W.9, the Doctor would confirm that the injuries sustained by the deceased would not have been caused by a single act of slip. On the other hand, he opined that the death of the deceased would have been caused due to the head injuries sustained by her. If the said opinion is tested in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 and the material objects recovered from the scene of occurrence, viz., M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian), it is irresistible to conclude that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused only by hitting the head of the deceased by M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone). 17. On the other hand, the presence of the accused along with the deceased with their three children on the fateful night at the scene of occurrence is not disputed. The only explanation offered by the accused was that the deceased slipped in the bathroom, which resulted in the death, due to head injuries. There is no proper explanation on the part of the accused for the presence of bloodstains in M.O.1 grinding stone tied up with M.O.2 green towel kept in M.O.3 gunny bag, except a bare denial and pleading ignorance. Hence, the denial of the accused in this regard cannot be believed. 18. There is no proper explanation on the part of the accused for the presence of bloodstains in M.O.1 grinding stone tied up with M.O.2 green towel kept in M.O.3 gunny bag, except a bare denial and pleading ignorance. Hence, the denial of the accused in this regard cannot be believed. 18. All these circumstantial evidence put together without any break in link in the chain would establish a irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the author of the crime and no other has committed the crime, which leads to the conclusion towards a safe conviction of the accused under the following circumstances: (i) there was illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.4, causing frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased; (ii) there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night, which developed into a fight between the accused and the deceased, and as a result, the accused sustained simple injuries as per the evidence of P.W.10 with reference to Ex.P12; (iii) the accused hit the deceased with M.O.1 grinding stone and caused grievous injuries, which resulted in the death of the deceased; (iv) the conduct of the accused not taking any effort to treat the deceased for the grievous injuries sustained by her and not informing neighbours, but, on the other hand, pledging jewel with P.W.3 would sufficiently prove his hatred and indifferent attitude towards the deceased; (v) the want of explanation by the accused for the blood stains found on M.O.1 (blood stained grinding stone), M.O.2 (blood stained towel), M.O.3 (blood stained gunny bag), and M.O.5 (blood stained white colour sleeveless banian), would further supply the missing link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution that leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused, but no other person, is the author of the crime; (vi) in any event, a bald denial of the accused and ignorance pleaded by him would only prove his adamant attitude, which would substantiate the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused; and (vii) it is, therefore, clear that each and every incriminating circumstance was clearly established by a reliable and clinching evidence and the chain of events discussed above irresistibly would prove the guilt of the accused for a safe conviction of the accused and the same is not merely based on suspicion or conjecture inasmuch as every link stands satisfactorily proved and the link between each of circumstantial evidence is in proximity to the time and situation, and the non-examination of the children, who were present at the time of occurrence, by the prosecution, would not in any way be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 19. Hence, holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2002 made in S.C.No.148 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.