Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2322 (MAD)

Sathiyamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu

2006-09-07

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Sathiyamurthy, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having killed his wife and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. Challenging the same, this Appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) The accused Sathiyamurthy is the husband of the deceased Meena alias Radhika. Both were living at Periyanatham Village, Chengalpattu. (b) The accused adopted a female child, by name Nandhini. The child was brought up by both the accused and the deceased and the parents of the accused. After some time, the deceased gave birth to a female child Sandhya and from then onwards, the adopted child was not taken care of. Subsequently, the adopted child died. With reference to the death of the adopted child, a case was registered against the deceased, the wife of the accused, and she was arrested and subsequently, she came out on bail. After coming out on bail, she stayed with her brother and father (P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively). The accused had a grudge against the deceased, since she was responsible for the death of his adopted child Nandhini. (c) On 27.2.2001 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused took the deceased near the Railway track at Singaperumal Koil Railway Station and attacked her with M.O.2 - hack-saw blade by cutting the neck of the deceased. The accused also took M.O.1 stone and threw it on the face of the deceased, with the result, the deceased died on the spot. (d) Next day, i.e. on 28.2.2001, P.W.1-Mohan, the brother of the deceased, on coming to know that the body of his sister was lying on the Railway track, went and saw the dead body and gave a complaint (Ex.P-1) to P.W.1 1 - Sub-Inspector of Police. A case was registered for the offence under Section 302, IPC by P.W. 11 on 28.2.2001. (e) P.W.12 - Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and observed all formalities. He examined the witnesses and conducted inquest. The dead body was sent for conducting post-mortem. A case was registered for the offence under Section 302, IPC by P.W. 11 on 28.2.2001. (e) P.W.12 - Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and observed all formalities. He examined the witnesses and conducted inquest. The dead body was sent for conducting post-mortem. (f) P.W.8 - Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P-4 - post-mortem certificate, wherein, the Doctor opined that "the deceased would appear to have died of cumulative effects of stab wound to the region of neck, impact of compression of neck and crush injuries to head". (g) In the meantime, the accused surrendered before the Court on 1.3.2001. P.W.12 - Inspector of Police obtained police custody of the accused on 7.3.2001 and on his confession on 8.3.2001, M.O.2 - hack-saw blade was recovered. (h) After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-13 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. Ex.C-1 (Form 95) was marked as a Court document. 4. The case of the accused when he was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is one of total denial. 5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the materials available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him there under. Hence, this Appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Police. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side. 8. According to prosecution, the deceased, the wife of the accused, was taken by the accused to a Railway track where she was done to death by the accused with hack-saw blade and stone on 27.2.2001 at about 10.00 p.m. There is no eye-witness. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, on coming to know that his sister was lying down near the Railway track, went and saw the dead body and gave a complaint (Ex.P-1). 9. Admittedly, in the complaint, P.W.1 did not entertain any suspicion against the accused. On the other hand, he stated in the complaint - Ex.P-1 that somebody had committed the murder. 10. 9. Admittedly, in the complaint, P.W.1 did not entertain any suspicion against the accused. On the other hand, he stated in the complaint - Ex.P-1 that somebody had committed the murder. 10. During the course of inquest, the Police Officer entertained suspicion over the accused on the basis of the statement given by P.Ws.1 and 2, namely the brother and father of the deceased. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased came out on bail in the case where she was arrested in respect of the death of the adopted child of the accused and the accused had a grudge against the deceased and after coming out on bail, the deceased began to stay with P.Ws.1 and 2 in their house. 11. The only two pieces of circumstances in this case are -- (i) the evidence of P.W.3 - Rajeswari and P.W.4 - Kanchana, who spoke about that the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused; and (ii) the recovery of M.O.2 - hack-saw blade. 12. With reference to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it has to be stated that they would not have been examined during the course of inquest, even though P.W.12 - Inspector of Police claimed that they were examined on that day. Admittedly, in the inquest report which was prepared on 28.2.2001, there is no reference about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused, as spoken to by P.W.3. P.W.3 would state in her evidence that she was examined by the Police one week after the death of the deceased. P.W.4 would state that she was never examined by the Police. Therefore, this Court is constrained to conclude that there is no acceptable evidence with reference to the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused. 13. Even though P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak about the motive, admittedly, P.W.1 - Mohan has not stated anything against the accused in the complaint (Ex.P-1) given by him, which is the earliest document. P.W.2 - Devaraj would state in his evidence that he has mentioned the name of the accused as 'suspect' when Police enquired him, as the accused had got motive against the deceased, whereas, in Ex.P-1 - complaint given by P.W.1 - Mohan, there is no mention about the accused. P.W.2 - Devaraj would state in his evidence that he has mentioned the name of the accused as 'suspect' when Police enquired him, as the accused had got motive against the deceased, whereas, in Ex.P-1 - complaint given by P.W.1 - Mohan, there is no mention about the accused. So, even assuming that the accused had a grudge against the deceased, that may not be a ground to hold that the accused alone committed the murder of the deceased. 14. Further, the particulars about the charge against the deceased and the date on which, the deceased came out on bail, have not been given by the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case relating to the death of the adopted child. 15. The only remaining evidence is the recovery of M.O.2 - hack-saw blade. The accused surrendered before the Court on 1.3.2001. Police custody was obtained on 7.3.2001 and only on 8.3.2001, on the confession of the accused, M.O.2 - hack-saw blade was recovered. Mere recovery of M.O.2 would not be sufficient to hold that the accused is the culprit. 16. Thus, there is no sufficient and acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question. Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled to be given the "benefit of doubt". 17. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on he appellant/accused by the Trial Court. He is acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refund to him. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled.