Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 791 (MAD)

Sujatha v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2006-03-21

A.R.RAMALINGAM, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code filed against the judgment dated 19.11.2002 in S.C.No.153 of 2002 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Sujatha, the appellant, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- "(a) The deceased in this case is the husband of the accused. They got married three years back. The deceased is a Carpenter. He is a drunkard and used to come late in the night and beat the accused. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 07.11.2000, he came late at about 10.00 PM. The accused Sujatha asked him as to why he came late night and there was a wordy quarrel. The deceased thereupon, beat the accused and demanded to supply food to him. However, he was not given food. Therefore, the deceased slept inside the house. (b) At about 12''0 clock midnight, he smelt of kerosene. When he woke up, he saw that the accused poured kerosene on him. Then, she brought a chimney lamp and set fire on him. Then, the neighbours, P.Ws.1 to 3 poured water on him and put out the fire. The information was conveyed to the relatives of the deceased and the accused and all came and scolded the accused. The accused went outside. (c) P.W.1 Rajavelu and P.W.5 Vaithilingam took the deceased to the Srimushnam Police Station. Then, the Police directed to take the deceased to the Government Headquarters, Vridhachalam. (d) At about 9.00 AM on 08.11.2000, P.W.16 Dr.Kasthuri admitted the deceased in the hospital and found 80% burns all over the body. The deceased told the doctor that at about 1.00 AM, his wife poured kerosene and burnt him with the help of her father and brother. Ex.P-10 is the copy of Accident Register. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore. (e) At about 12.10 PM, P.W.13 Dr.Senthamizhselvi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore, examined him and issued Ex.P-5, the copy of the Accident Register. (f) On receipt of intimation, P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-14 statement from the deceased Murugan. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore. (e) At about 12.10 PM, P.W.13 Dr.Senthamizhselvi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore, examined him and issued Ex.P-5, the copy of the Accident Register. (f) On receipt of intimation, P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-14 statement from the deceased Murugan. A case was registered for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. P.W.19 Inspector of Police took up investigation. (g) In the meantime, P.W.15, Dr.Srimathi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, requesting him to come to the hospital and record dying declaration from the deceased. (h) According to P.W.14, Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore came and recorded the dying declaration Ex.P-7 from him. As per Ex.P-7, the deceased told the Magistrate that on 07.11.2000, in his house, the accused poured kerosene and set fire on him. (i) On 10.11.2000 at about 7.10 PM, Murugan died. The intimation was sent to P.W.19, Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the offence was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. On 11.11.2000, the inquest was held and the body was sent for post-mortem. (j) P.W.17, Dr.Parthasarathy conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P-12 post-mortem certificate, giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of 95% burn injuries. (k) On 21.11.2000, P.W.19 arrested the accused and sent her for judicial custody. Material objects were sent for chemical examination. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. (l) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-23 were filed and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. (m) The plea of the accused, while she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is one of denial. No evidence was adduced on the side of defence. (n) 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. According to the prosecution, the accused/wife poured kerosene over the body of the deceased husband and set fire on his body with the help of chimney lamp. Even though there are four eye witnesses, all turned hostile. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal". 3. According to the prosecution, the accused/wife poured kerosene over the body of the deceased husband and set fire on his body with the help of chimney lamp. Even though there are four eye witnesses, all turned hostile. Of course, there are some witnesses to speak about the oral dying declaration. They also turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution is only left with the dying declarations made by the deceased to the authorities. 4. The first document is Ex.P-10, which is the copy of Accident Register issued by P.W.16 Doctor, who examined the deceased at 9.00 AM on 08.11.2000. According to this document, kerosene was poured by Sujatha, the wife, at the instigation of her father and brother. The second document is Ex.P-14, which is the complaint recorded by P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police at about 1.00PM. In this statement, the deceased implicated only the wife. The third document is Ex.P-7, the statement recorded by P.W.14, the Judicial Magistrate at about 3.20 PM on 08.11.2000. In this statement also, he implicated the wife alone. The fourth document is Ex.P-19, the statement given by the deceased to P.W.19, the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. In this statement, he implicated the wife, her father and brother. Thus, there are variations in these documents with reference to the participants and incident. In two documents, he implicates only the wife and in other two documents, he implicates three persons. 5. In view of the vital variations, we are unable to place reliance on anyone of the documents and, as such, it has to be held that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Moreover, the contents of Ex.P-14, the complaint given to P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police and the contents of Ex.P-7, the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, would give lot of details, which indicate that the entire incident is so artificial. Therefore, we are of the view that the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 6. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed under section 302 of I.P.C. 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.