Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 158 (MAD)

State by Inspector of Police v. Periyasamy

2013-01-08

M.JAICHANDREN, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2013
Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The respondents are the accused in S.C.No.53 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the second accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment, dated 27.11.2002, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the charges. Challenging the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Papayee Ammal. PW4 is the neighbour of the deceased Papayee Ammal. The accused also belonged to the same place and their house are situated somewhere near the house of the deceased. In respect of a pathway, there was a dispute between the deceased and wife of the first accused. There were frequent quarrels over the same for some time. 3. On 28.04.2001, according to the prosecution, at 10.30 p.m., when the deceased alone was at her home, both the accused entered into her house and the first accused throttled her to death by constricting her neck using a saree. The second accused facilitated the first accused to commit murder by catching hold the deceased. 4. In order to prove the charges before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 25 documents were exhibited besides 9 material objects. PW1 is the brother of one Vasantha. Vasantha is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to PW1, on 29.04.2001, at about 08.00 a.m. he received a phone messaged from Vasantha that Papayee ammal was found dead in front of her house. He immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and found the dead body in front of the house of the deceased. He has also vividly spoken to about the pathway dispute between the first accused and the deceased. Then, he proceeded to the police station and made a complaint (Ex.P1). 5. PW12 was the Inspector of Police at Velayuthampalayam Police Station. At 11.30 a.m. on 29.04.2001, he registered a case in Cr.No.102 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P21 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P21 to Court. Then, he proceeded to the police station and made a complaint (Ex.P1). 5. PW12 was the Inspector of Police at Velayuthampalayam Police Station. At 11.30 a.m. on 29.04.2001, he registered a case in Cr.No.102 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P21 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P21 to Court. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P17 Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and Ex.P23 Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then, from the place of occurrence, he recovered bloodstained earth (MO6) and sample earth (MO7) under a mahazar (Ex.P18) in the presence of the very same witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 02.00 p.m. and 04.00 p.m. Ex.P24 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 6. PW8, doctor Periyasamy conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 29.04.2001 at 05.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:- 1. Skin peeled off from the back of the left shoulder. 2. Skin peeled off over right arm medial aspect near axiller and submandibulam region. Both eyes congested, sub conjunctival hemorrhage. Clotted blood present over botheyes and over both sides of nose. Blood stained froth -nostils. Mouth tightly plucked with bloodstained white cloth. Tongue congested. Multiple aberrations + both lips + Teeth - left upper - 2 incisors - Loer 2 incisors and canive + right upper -central incisor + canine He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia. 7. Continuing the investigation, PW12 arranged for a photographer to take photos of the place of occurrence. Then he had requisitioned the services of a police sniffer dog. PW6 was a constable attached to the Sniffer dog unit of Trichy District Police. On the request of PW12, he brought a police sniffer dog to the place of occurrence. Taking scent from the place of occurrence, the dog made few rounds of the house of the deceased and went to the house of the first accused. This gave a clue to PW12 that the first accused would have had complicity in the crime. On 30.04.2001 at 01.00 p.m. he arrested the first accused at Thavootupalayam Check post. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession. In pursuance of the same, he took PW12 and the witnesses to his house and produced a lungi, which had been dried after washing. On 30.04.2001 at 01.00 p.m. he arrested the first accused at Thavootupalayam Check post. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession. In pursuance of the same, he took PW12 and the witnesses to his house and produced a lungi, which had been dried after washing. PW12 examined few more witnesses. Then, PW13 took up the case for further investigation, since PW12 had been transferred. PW13 laid charge sheet against the accused. 8. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW5, who has stated that at 10.30 p.m. on 28.04.2001, while he was at his house, he heard a quarrel between the first accused and the deceased, but he did not see either the accused or the deceased. On the next day morning he found the body of the deceased in front of her house on the street. 9. The next evidence available to the prosecution is the evidence of PW6. He has stated that sniffer dog had gone to the house of the first accused. Thereafter, the prosecution relies on the recovery of lungi (MO3). The trial Court has disbelieved these circumstances and has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In our considered opinion too, the trial Court was right in acquitting the accused. The evidence of PW6, who has stated that sniffer dog had gone to the house of the first accused, cannot have any evidentary value at all. So far as recovery of MO3 is concerned, there was no bloodstain on the same and the connection between the said lungi and the crime also not been established. Therefore, the very confession of the accused is not admissible, since it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of PW5 will be of no use, because PW5 did not see either the accused or the deceased quarrelling with each other. He only heard something. He has also not stated from where they were fighting. The fact remains that the body of the deceased was found outside the house of the deceased, that too on the street. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be stated to be unreasonable, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. 10. The fact remains that the body of the deceased was found outside the house of the deceased, that too on the street. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be stated to be unreasonable, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.