Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3268 (MAD)

Mahendran v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2014-09-12

P.N.PRAKASH, S.RAJESWARAN

body2014
Judgment P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused Mahendran, who was tried in S.C.No.148/2010 and convicted to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam on 02.02.2011, is the appellant before us. 2. The case of the prosecution begins with the evidence of Rabert [P.W.1], owner of A.D.R. Lodge in Velankanni. While he was at home on 18.01.2009, he was told by his employees that Room No.7 in the lodge has been latched from outside without locking since morning and the occupant has not returned till 1.00 in the afternoon. So he went to his lodge, opened Room No.7 and went inside. In the bathroom of the room, he found a dead body of a lady, who was scantily clad, with injuries on her forehead. Immediately, he lodged a written complaint [Ex.P.1] based on which, Ms.Karolin, Sub-Inspector of Police[P.W.11] registered a case in Vellankanni Police Station, Crime No.22/2009 u/s.174 Cr.P.C. – Suspicious death on 18.01.2009, at 2.00 p.m. The printed F.I.R., was marked as Ex.P.7. In the First Information Report, Rabert [P.W.1] has stated that Room No.7 was taken on 17.01.2009 at 5.25 p.m., by one Mahendran residing at No.24, Colony Street, Nallazhandhur, Mayilduthurai. 3. Investigation in this case was taken over by N.Shanmugam, the Inspector of Police [P.W.19], who went to the place of occurrence around 2.15 p.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.4] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.14] in the presence of witnesses Rajendran[P.W.9] and Packrisamy (not examined). From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer recovered a Broken beer bottle [M.O.2], Empty beer bottle [M.O.3], Empty water bottle [M.O.4], Empty Wills Scissors cigarette packet [M.O.5], a brassiere [M.O.6], Nylon Sari [M.O.7], jacket [M.O.8], a pant [M.O.10], a handbag [M.O.11], Iron bucket [M.O.12] and a money purse [M.O.13], under the cover of mahazar [Ex.P.5], attested by Rajendran [P.W.9] and Packrisamy (not examined). Anbazhagan (P.W.14), the Police Photographer was summoned and he took photographs of the body and the place of occurrence, which were marked as M.O.1 series. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body in the place of occurrence and inquest report was marked as Ex.P.15. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem to Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, where Dr. Kamalesh Kumar [P.W.10] performed autopsy over the body. Dr. Kamalesh Kumar, in the evidence as well in the Post Mortem Certificate [Ex.P.6] has noted as follows:- “External Injuries:- 1. 10 x 8 cm contusion left upper chest wall. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem to Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, where Dr. Kamalesh Kumar [P.W.10] performed autopsy over the body. Dr. Kamalesh Kumar, in the evidence as well in the Post Mortem Certificate [Ex.P.6] has noted as follows:- “External Injuries:- 1. 10 x 8 cm contusion left upper chest wall. 2. 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm laceration forehead. 3. 15 x 2 cm anterior neck horizontal ligature mark contusion (partial) 4. 1.5 x 0.5 cm laceration left fore arm near elbow. Abdomen : uniform, stomach empty/Liver 1500 gms c/s congested/Spleen 150 gms c/s congested/Kidneys each around 125 gms c/s congested/uterus empty appears normal/intestines gas filled. Chest: Ribs apparently intact/Heart 350 gms cambers empty/Lungs Rt.450 gms,. Lt.400 gms c/s congested/HYOID BONE BROKEN RT SIDE LIMB. Skull: Intact no apparent fracture. Brain and Membranes intact, brain around 1200 gms, no blood clots, Spinal cord, no apparent injury. Stomach intestine, liver, kidney and preservatives were sent for visceral examination. Report of visceral examination: No evidence of poisoning as per report TMCH (T.No.8042/2009, TOX.H.No.42/2009)Dt 30.01.2009 Death appears to occur 24 to 36 hours prior to P.M. Cause of death: The death appears to have occurred due to mechanical asyphyxia may be due to throttling (broken hyoid bone).” 4. On 19.01.2009, Shanmugam [P.W.19], Inspector of Police submitted an alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam praying to alter the case from one of suspicious death under Section 174 Cr.P.C., to one under Section 302 IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P.16. Since N. Shanmugam was in-charge of Velankanni Police Station, he handed over the investigation of the case to P. Saravanan[P.W.20], the regular Inspector of Police on 19.01.2009. In the presence of P.W.18 [Raja], Jeyaraman (not examined) and [P.W.20] P. Saravanan, the Inspector of Police arrested Mahendran and recorded his confession statement. Based on the disclosure statement after arrest, the accused produced the key[M.O.17] of the lock of Room No.7, A.D.R. Lodge, which was recovered under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.13]. Thereafter, the accused was sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate for being remanded to Judicial Custody. After the Post-mortem, the clothes that were found on the body were handed over to the police. Thereafter, the accused was sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate for being remanded to Judicial Custody. After the Post-mortem, the clothes that were found on the body were handed over to the police. P. Saravanan, the Inspector of Police[P.W.20] examined several witnesses including the doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body and after completing the investigation, filed the final report against the appellant on 24.02.2009 for an offence under Section 302 IPC, before Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagapattinam, who took the same on file in P.R.C.No.7/09. 5. On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., was complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC on the appellant for causing the death of Manjula on 17.01.2009 in Room No.7 of A.D.R. Lodge. When the appellant was questioned, he told the Court as follows:- “TAMIL” (It is true that I murdered. She asked me to come with her, so in anger I hit her with beer bottle.) The Sessions Judge, rightly did not give credence to this answer, but went ahead with the trial by examining the witnesses. 6. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses, marked 16 Exhibits and 17 M.Os to prove their case. 7. After the prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. 8. After hearing either side, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years. 9. The entire case revolves on circumstantial evidence. Krishnamoorthy[P.W.4], the husband of the deceased Manjula, in his evidence, stated that the deceased Manjula was his wife and she had illicit intimacy with the appellant; on coming to know of which, he upbraided her despite which she was not relenting. In his evidence, he has stated that during the Pongal festivities in 2009, he left his wife and children in the house of his mother-in-law (mother of the deceased) and he had gone for harvesting the crop. 10. In his evidence, he has stated that during the Pongal festivities in 2009, he left his wife and children in the house of his mother-in-law (mother of the deceased) and he had gone for harvesting the crop. 10. Nagammal[P.W.5], the mother of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that the deceased and her three children came to her house for Pongal festival and the accused, who is related to her also came to her house at that time and they were all watching the Village dances during the festivities in the night prior to the date of occurrence; the appellant left the house in the morning of 17.01.2009 saying that he is going out to his village and he was dropped by her daughter Malarvizhi [P.W.6] in the bus-stand in her bicycle; on the same day evening, the deceased also left the house leaving the three children with her and she was dropped by Malarvizhi at the bus-stand. Malarvizhi [P.W.6], the sister of the deceased stated that the accused and the deceased were there in their house during Pongal and that on 17.01.2009 she dropped the accused in the bus-stand in the morning and on the same evening she dropped her sister also in the bus-stop. Thereafter, they were informed of their sister's death. 11. From the evidence of P.W.5 and 6, it is clear that the deceased and the accused were found together on 17.01.2009 in the morning. Anbarasan[P.W.7] and Jayabal[P.W.8] are local villagers. In their evidence, they stated that they knew the appellant and the deceased, as they were all from the same village and they also knew about the illicit intimacy between them. 12. The defence was not able to demolish the evidence of these four witnesses substantially. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that the deceased was the wife of Krishnamoorthy[P.W.4] and she was with the appellant in her mother’s house on 17.01.2009 and she was having illicit intimacy with the appellant. 13. Thereafter, we have the evidence of Robert [P.W.1], the owner of A.D.R. Lodge, Umapathi [P.W.2], the Manager of A.D.R. Lodge and Kulanchinathan [P.W.3], the Room Boy of A.D.R. Lodge. We have already discussed the evidence of Robert [P.W.1], who had not seen either the appellant or the deceased, but had gone to the lodge on information and lodged the complaint after finding the dead body in Room No.7. We have already discussed the evidence of Robert [P.W.1], who had not seen either the appellant or the deceased, but had gone to the lodge on information and lodged the complaint after finding the dead body in Room No.7. Therefore, the evidence of Umapathi [P.W.2] and Kulanchinathan[P.W.3] is very significant. 14. Umapathi[P.W.2], in his evidence stated that he was working as Manager at A.D.R. Lodge during the relevant time; that on 17.01.2009, Edwinraj [P.W.16], a broker, brought and introduced the appellant who was with a lady, whom he claimed as his wife. They were given room in the 2nd floor; the appellant paid a sum of Rs.300/-, which was inclusive of Rs.250/- as advance; in the guest register, the appellant entered his name and address and in Column Number of members, he wrote as 'one male' and 'one female'; he also signed in the register in the presence of P.W.2. The relevant entries were marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. P.W.2 clearly identified that the accused is the person, who has taken the room. On the next day i.e., on 18.01.2009, around 10.00 in the morning, when P.W.2 was standing along with Kulanchinathan[P.W.3], they saw the appellant going out. At that time, P.W.2 and P.W.3 asked him, whether he needed breakfast, for which the appellant declined. Around 12.30 noon, Kulanchinathan, P.W.3 told P.W.2 that Room No.7 is latched from outside, but it is not locked. This arose a suspicion in the minds of both Kulanchinathan[P.W.3] and Umapathi[P.W.2], and so P.W.2 informed Robert [P.W.1], the owner of A.D.R. Lodge and together they opened the room, found the dead body of Manjula in the bathroom. 15. Similarly Kulanchinathan[P.W.3] in his evidence, stated that on 17.01.2009 around 5.00 or 5.30, the appellant came to his lodge with a lady claiming her as his wife, to whom, he showed Room No.7; around 8.00 in the night the appellant called him to the room and asked him to buy tiffin; again on the next day around 6.30 in the morning, he knocked the room and asked whether they needed coffee, for which, the appellant stated that they did not need. Around 10.00 in the morning, when he was with P.W.2 in the entrance of the lodge, he saw the appellant going out and at that time he asked him, whether he needed breakfast; the appellant declined and went out. Around 10.00 in the morning, when he was with P.W.2 in the entrance of the lodge, he saw the appellant going out and at that time he asked him, whether he needed breakfast; the appellant declined and went out. Since the appellant did not return upto 12.30 noon and the room was latched from outside, he informed P.W.2 and P.W.2 called the owner of the lodge over phone; the owner of the lodge and P.W.2 went inside the room and a body was found in the room. 16. In the cross-examination of both P.Ws.2 and 3, it was suggested that they were not even the employees of A.D.R. Lodge, which suggestion they denied. P.W.2, in his cross examination stated that he did not collect any identification card from the appellant when he checked in and that he did not inform the police that the guest has checked in on 17.01.2009. Edwin Raj [P.W.16] stated that he is a lodge room broker and that it was he who brought the appellant and a lady to A.D.R. Lodge and got them a room there. His signature in the A.D.R. Lodge guest Register was marked as Ex.P.9. He stated that he would receive commission from the Lodge for procuring customers. Just because P.W.2 had not collected the identification particulars from the appellant, we cannot disbelieve his evidence and hold that the appellant and Manjula did not check into A.D.R. Lodge on 17.01.2009 as deposed by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.16. 17. It was further contended that there was no test identification parade for the identification of the appellant by P.Ws.2, 3 and 16 during investigation. This argument does not cut much ice with us because all these three witnesses have had long interactions with the appellant. It was P.W.16, who brought the appellant and the lady with him to A.D.R. Lodge for getting Room and introduced them to P.W.2. The appellant filled the guest register by his own hand. P.W.16 has also signed in the guest register, which was marked as Ex.P.9. P.W.3 has taken the appellant with the lady to Room No.7 and in the evening he got tiffin for them. It is not the case that these witnesses had seen the appellant at fleeting moments. The appellant filled the guest register by his own hand. P.W.16 has also signed in the guest register, which was marked as Ex.P.9. P.W.3 has taken the appellant with the lady to Room No.7 and in the evening he got tiffin for them. It is not the case that these witnesses had seen the appellant at fleeting moments. Since they had spent substantial time with the appellant, their identification in the court, which is relevant under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act can neither be doubted nor be rejected. 18. The next most incriminating circumstance against the appellant is the recovery of key of the lock [M.O.17] of Room No.7 from the possession of the appellant, after his arrest. 19. To sum up the proved circumstances; (a) from the evidence of Krishnamoorthy [P.W.4], the husband of Manjula, Anbarasan [P.W.7] and Jayabal [P.W.8], it is clear that the appellant and Manjula had illicit intimacy; (b) from the evidence of Krishnamoorthy [P.W.4], Nagammal [P.W.5] and Malarvizhi [P.W.6], it has been established that the appellant and Manjula stayed in Manjula's mother's house on 16.01.2009 and they both left at different times on 17.01.2009; (c) on 17.01.2009, the appellant and Manjula were brought to A.D.R. Lodge by Edwinraj [P.W.16]; (d) the appellant and Manjula took Room No.7 on 17.01.2009, which fact has been established beyond any pale of doubt through the evidence of Edwinraj [P.W.16], Umapathi [P.W.2] and Kulanchinathan [P.W.3]; (e) on 18.01.2009, the appellant latched the room from outside and thereafter, he was not seen. This fact has been established through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3; (f) that the body of Manjula was found inside Room No.7 with injuries by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and subsequently by the police, has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution; (g) the death of Manjula is not suicidal, but homicidal as opined by Dr. Kamalesh Kumar [P.W.10]; (h) the appellant was arrested and was found in possession of the key of the lock to Room No.7. From a conspectus of the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved all the circumstances beyond doubt and they lead us to an irresistible inference that it was the appellant, who had committed the offence. 20. Kamalesh Kumar [P.W.10]; (h) the appellant was arrested and was found in possession of the key of the lock to Room No.7. From a conspectus of the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved all the circumstances beyond doubt and they lead us to an irresistible inference that it was the appellant, who had committed the offence. 20. The learned counsel for the defence submitted that the appellant did not have the mensrea to commit the offence of murder as that would be evident from the fact that he had truthfully disclosed his name and address in the guest register[Ex.P.2]. It is his submission that if he had wanted to commit the murder of Manjula, he would have assumed a pseudo name instead of declaring his own name in the guest register. 21. May be it is true that when the appellant checked in on 17.01.2009, he would not have had the intention of murdering Manjula, but, thereafter what happened is a fact, which is exclusively known only to the appellant. The dead body was found in the bathroom and the nature of injuries found on the body by the post-mortem doctor does not support the argument that it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Police had recovered a broken Beer Bottle [M.O.2] from the place of occurrence and the Post-Mortem Doctor has noted an injury on the forehead of the deceased and the hyoid bone was found to be broken. Therefore, from the nature of injuries and from the cause of death as opined by the Doctor, we are unable to infer that the death was caused without any intention. The subsequent conduct of the appellant in latching the door from outside and slipping away as if nothing had happened has also been taken into account by us. In such circumstances, there is a burden cast on the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain how the incident occurred. He can discharge the burden even by preponderance of probability. He has not even given any explanation during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, we are not able to give the benefit of Section 304 IPC to the appellant. 22. In the light of such overwhelming materials against the appellant, we hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt and hence the appeal fails. 22. In the light of such overwhelming materials against the appellant, we hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt and hence the appeal fails. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the trial court judgment is confirmed.