Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 288 (MAD)

Mariammal v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2013-01-10

M.JAICHANDREN, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2013
JUDGMENT S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.29/2004 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. She stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial court, by judgment, dated 25.10.2004, convicted her under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ramasamy. The appellant is her sister. The deceased was a drunkard. The appellant was only maintaining the family. She was a coolie, by profession. On several occasions, the deceased, in a drunken state, had developed quarrel with the family members, demanding money for liquor. (b) On 03.11.2003, at about 4.00 p.m., the accused had gone to the local market. At that time, the deceased came to the house of the accused, in a drunken state, and caused extensive damage to the properties and threw away most of the movable properties in the house on the road. At about 5.00 p.m. one Chennamuthu met the accused in the market and told her about the said incident. Immediately, the accused returned to her house. She found the deceased in a drunken state and the house had already been damaged, extensively and movable properties were all found on the road. The accused got provoked by the said act of the deceased. He took out a stick lying there and attacked the deceased. The deceased fell down. She tied his neck, by using a rope and then she dragged the body and put it by the side of her house. Then, she immediately proceeded to the office of P.W.1. (c) P.W.1 is the President of Velampadi Village Panchayat Board. At 6.30 p.m., while he was in his office, the accused came and narrated to him the entire occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence, along with the Village Administrative Officer. After ascertaining the facts, P.W.1 went to the police station to prefer complaint. P.W.11 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Aravakurichi Police Station. On 03.11.2003, at 10.00 p.m., P.W.1 presented a written complaint regarding the occurrence (vide Ex.P-1). Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence, along with the Village Administrative Officer. After ascertaining the facts, P.W.1 went to the police station to prefer complaint. P.W.11 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Aravakurichi Police Station. On 03.11.2003, at 10.00 p.m., P.W.1 presented a written complaint regarding the occurrence (vide Ex.P-1). P.w.11 registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.314/2003 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-16 is the First Information Report. Then he forwarded the F.I.R. and the Complaint to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police, for investigation. (d) P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police attached to Aravakurichi Police Station, took-up the case for investigation. At 11.00 p.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch (Exs.P-2 and P-17). Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-18, Inquest Report. Then, he examined few witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem. (e) P.W.6 Dr.Akbar Ali was an Assistant Civil Surgeon, attached to Government Hospital, Pallapatti, during the relevant time. On 04.11.2003, he commenced postmortem examination at 11.40 a.m. on the body of the deceased. He found the following external injuries. "(1) 6x3x3 cm contusion over the occipital region. (2) 6x3x2 cm laceration over the right eye brow. (3) A rope mark present around the neck, extending from 6cm below right ear, encircling the throat, extending to back of neck (around the neck). (4) 10x6 cm contusion over the right mid leg green in colour. (5). Multiple abrasion in different sizes present in left leg, left hand." Ex.P-7 is the Postmortem Certificate. During postmortem, P.W.6 preserved stomach and its contents, intestine (a portion), a port of liver and one portion of kidney for the purpose of chemical examination. All these organs were examined by the Scientific Assistant Grade-I (S.G.), Forensic Science Laboratory, Tiruchirappalli. Ex.P-15 is the Report. According to the said report, no poison was detected in the above internal organs of the deceased. P.W.6 finally gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to injury to brain and asphyxia. (f) Continuing his investigation, P.W.12 arrested the accused at 3.10 a.m. on 04.11.203 at the place of occurrence itself. Ex.P-15 is the Report. According to the said report, no poison was detected in the above internal organs of the deceased. P.W.6 finally gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to injury to brain and asphyxia. (f) Continuing his investigation, P.W.12 arrested the accused at 3.10 a.m. on 04.11.203 at the place of occurrence itself. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which she disclosed that she would identify the place where she had hidden the stick and the rope. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused produced the above said material objects, which were recovered by P.W.12 under a mahazar. Then he recovered M.O.1 - bloodstained earth, M.O.2 - sample earth and M.O.3 - pieces of broken tiles from the place of occurrence, under Ex.P-3 Mahazar. Then he forwarded the accused and the material objects to the Court. Finally, on completing the investigation, P.W.12 laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC, on 30.01.2004. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges. Therefore she was put on trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and marked 18 documents, besides 8 material objects. 4. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Village Panchayat President and he has spoken to about the extra judicial confession given by the accused to him. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are neighbours of the accused. They are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken to about the occurrence. P.W.6 has spoken to the fact that he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he has also spoken to about the cause of death. The others are official witnesses. 5. When the above evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, she denied the same as false. However, she did not choose to examine any witness on her side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above materials, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302, convicted her there under and sentenced her as narrated in the 1st paragraph of this judgment. That is how the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal. 6. Having considered the above materials, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302, convicted her there under and sentenced her as narrated in the 1st paragraph of this judgment. That is how the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully. 7. So far as the alleged occurrence is concerned, the prosecution relies on eye-witness account of P.Ws.2 to 4 as well as the extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.1. It is true that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. But, at the same time, if the said extra judicial confession inspires the confidence of the court, that by itself can be the sole foundation for conviction. But, in this case, apart from the extra judicial confession orally made by the accused to P.W.1, the prosecution has got the benefit of eye-witness account of P.Ws.2 to 4. Though P.Ws.2 to 4 has been extensively cross-examined, nothing has been elicited from those witnesses so as to disbelieve them. Similarly, P.W.1 is a respectable person, being the Village Panchayat President and he has no axe to grind against the accused. There is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1, as well. Apart from that, the medical evidence also duly corroborates the eye-witness account. Thus, from these evidences, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased and thus this is a homicidal. 8. Now, turning to the question as to what was the offence committed by the accused, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused had acted due to grave and sudden provocation. In our considered opinion, there are overwhelming evidence to probabilise grave and sudden provocation on the part of the accused. Admittedly, there was no motive between the accused and the deceased. The accused had, in a peaceful manner, gone to the local market to purchase goods. At that time, the deceased, who was a drunkard, came fully drunk and caused extensive damage to the properties in the house. Admittedly, there was no motive between the accused and the deceased. The accused had, in a peaceful manner, gone to the local market to purchase goods. At that time, the deceased, who was a drunkard, came fully drunk and caused extensive damage to the properties in the house. On hearing the message, the accused came to the house and on seeing the extensive damage caused to the properties and the fact that most of the movable properties were thrown on the road, she had been provoked. In our considered opinion, the said provocation is not only grave but, it is sudden. Thus, the accused is entitled to the benefit of 1st Exception to Section 300 IPC. Thus the act of the accused is an offence punishable under Section 304 (i) IPC. 9. Turning to the question of quantum of punishment, it is brought to our notice that the accused is a widow. The deceased in this case has left behind two children. Apart from that, yet another brother has also left behind two children. All the four children are now being brought up only by the accused. Though she is a coolie by profession, with great difficulties, she is maintaining them. Having regard to the nature of the crime committed by the accused and the other mitigating circumstances, which we have enumerated above, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case where we have to show the maximum possible leniency to the accused, in the matter of quantum of punishment. In our considered opinion, imposing a sentence of three years of rigourous imprisonment for the said offence would be fair, just and reasonable. 10. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed with the following modification in the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed thereon are set aside, instead, she is convicted under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. No fine is imposed. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. The bail bonds executed by her shall stand cancelled. The trial court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the accused and to commit her to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence, as per the modified sentence. No fine is imposed. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. The bail bonds executed by her shall stand cancelled. The trial court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the accused and to commit her to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence, as per the modified sentence. The sentence already undergone by her shall be given setoff under Section 428 Cr. P.C.