Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1018 (MAD)

Parvathy v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police

2006-04-10

A.R.RAMALINGAM, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code filed against the judgment dated 26.11.2002 in S.C.No.100 of 2002 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Vridhachalam). M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Parvathi, the appellant herein, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: - "(a) The deceased Veerakumar is the husband of the accused. They were living at Maaligai Kottam Village. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. The deceased Veerakumar, the husband of the accused, used to come to the house in a drunken mood and beat Parvathi. The deceased also sold half portion of the dwelling house belonging to the family to one Veerasamy and utilised the sale proceeds for drinking purpose. Further, the deceased was again making attempt to sell away the remaining half portion of the dwelling house. When this was questioned by the accused, the deceased used to torture her. Unable to bear the torture, the accused approached one Sundaram, P.W.3, the Village President and complained about the behaviour of the deceased and requested to warn him. However, P.W.3 did not oblige her. Therefore, the accused Parvathi planned to kill her husband. (b) On 31.01.2001/01.02.2001 around 3.00 AM., while her husband was sleeping inside the house, the accused took 'Aruval' and gave indiscriminate cuts on the body of the deceased. In the result, he died on the spot. (c) Thereafter, she went to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and gave a statement, narrating the circumstances under which she decided to kill her husband and in pursuance of the said design, she murdered the deceased inside the house. (d) P.W.1, on listening the statement made by the accused, prepared a report and took her to the police station. Then, at about 9.00 AM, P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.16 Sub-Inspector of Police. Immediately, the confession statement was recorded from the accused. In pursuance of the same, the 'Aruval'(M.O.1) was recovered from the house of the accused. A case was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. (e) Then, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation, came to the scene and observed all the formalities. The accused was then arrested and sent for remand. In pursuance of the same, the 'Aruval'(M.O.1) was recovered from the house of the accused. A case was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. (e) Then, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation, came to the scene and observed all the formalities. The accused was then arrested and sent for remand. (f) P.W.17 filed a requisition before the Magistrate, requesting to record statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code from the accused. Then, the material objects were sent for chemical examination. (g) Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. (h) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-26 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked. (i) The accused, while she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that on the date of occurrence, she was not available in the house and she was in the house of her parents along with the children. (j) The trial Court relied upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal". 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Admittedly, there is no eye witness. The only evidence available as against the accused is the extra- judicial confession given by her to P.W.1 and the recovery of 'Aruval' and bloodstained clothes. With regard to the extra-judicial confession given by the accused, it has been stated that P.W.1 strangely had not taken steps to reduce her statement into writing. He has also admitted that he had never prepared any complaint or any report for being sent to his senior officials, namely, Revenue Department. On the other hand, he took her to the police station and he himself wrote a complaint as if he was informed by the accused about the incident and handed over to P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police. 5. On the other hand, he took her to the police station and he himself wrote a complaint as if he was informed by the accused about the incident and handed over to P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police. 5. Though the records would state that P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police registered the first information report for the offence under section 302 I.P.C., P.W.1 would state that he has given a complaint to P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, who recorded the confession of the accused immediately thereafter and in pursuance of the confession, the 'Aruval' was recovered from the house of the accused. On the other hand, the records would indicate that after the registration of the first information report, the accused was handed over by P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police to P.W.17 Inspector of Police, who in turn, went to the scene and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and thereafter, the accused was arrested and on her confession, the 'Aruval' was recovered. 6. According to P.W.1, immediately when she was handed over, she gave a confession to the Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing and in pursuance of which, Aruval was recovered. But, this was not supported by P.W.3, the Village President, who attested the confession. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 would state that he signed in the confession statement, but he did not state that he was present, while the confession was recorded from the accused. 7. Admittedly, the accused was produced by P.W.1 at 9.00 AM itself in the police station. According to P.W.17, she was arrested at 3.00 PM. There is no reason as to why in spite of the fact that the case was registered at 9.00 AM on the complaint of P.W.1, the accused was not arrested either by P.W.16 or by P.W.17 immediately. On the other hand, the records as well as the evidence of P.W.1 would show that the accused was arrested on 3.00 PM and confession was recorded from her and consequently, Aruval was recovered. This evidence is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1. 8. Therefore, in our view, the materials as regards both the aspects would not show that the same have been established beyond reasonable doubt so as to conclude that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence. This evidence is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1. 8. Therefore, in our view, the materials as regards both the aspects would not show that the same have been established beyond reasonable doubt so as to conclude that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are set aside and the appeal is allowed. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.