Madhavan, S/O.Chellappan v. State Rep.By Inspector Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 07.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.A.No.433 of 2014 Madhavan ..Appellant/Accused vs.
State rep by Inspector of Police, Kuthalam Police Station, Nagapattinam (Crime No.32 of 2010) ..Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 18.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in S.C.No.216 of 2010. For Appellant : M/s.S.Deepika For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,Addl.P.P.
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.216 of 2010, on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court by judgement dated 18.06.2013 convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused 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 Mallika, who is the mother of P.W.1. She was residing with her two children at Manjal Vaikkal Street, Malliyam Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. Her husband was said to be working at Dubai. The deceased was doing agricultural work. On 29.01.2010, early morning, the deceased left for work. Thereafter her children also left for school. When they
returned back in the evening, their mother did not come back home and since the neighbours informed them that their mother has gone to hospital, they kept quiet. Next day morning at about 7.00 p.m., since the deceased mother did not come to house, her children started searching for her and found a burnt body in a near Dry River Channel, namely, Rendavathu patthi vaikkal. P.W.1 identified the body as that of her mother. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave a complaint, Ex.P1. Based on the same, P.W.9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2010 for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C and the F.I.R is Ex.P.13. He sent both the complaint and the F.I.R to Court. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the F.I.
R commenced the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence, at about 1.15 p.m., and prepared an Observation Maghazar and also a Rough Sketch under Exs. P2 and P15. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayathars and prepared Ex.P.16, inquest report in the presence of PW.5 and another witness, P.W.13 recovered burnt earth and unburnt earth from the scene of occurrence and thereafter he sent the body for post mortem to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital. P.W.7, the Doctor, working in the Government Hospital conducted Post Mortem on the dead body and found the following injuries and also issued post mortem certificate, Ex.P.
7 as follows:- Moderately built body of a female lying back on the pm table, Both UL and LL abducted, fixed and fingers hooked, with 100% burns involving all the parts of the body except right wrist and hand and both soles. Left hand upto middle of forearm completely lost by burns exposing the bones. whole body appear cooked, Blackened, rigid. Hair burnt in the base and removed from the head.
Internal Examn:- Head skull bones intact. Brain and its coverings intact. Brain appears pale. No internal haemorrhage. Neck Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage intact. Sooth particles seen in the throat and trachea.
Chest:- Ribs intact Lungs shrunken and blackish. Heart pale, flabby, empty Abdomen:- All organs in situ. Stomach contains 200ml of undigested price particles. Small intestine shrunken and pale. Liver-Pale, soft, spleen and kidney pale. Uterus normal in size and cavity empty. Bladder empty. Ext genitalia completely burnt. Spine and long bones normal". PW7, Doctor, had given Final Opinion, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of 100% burn injuries. 3.During the investigation, P.W.13 came to know that the accused has committed the murder. Hence, on 03.02.2010 at about 5.30 a.m, he arrested the accused in the presence of
P.W.6 and on such arrest, the accused voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement, P.W.13 recovered M.O.1,Alluminium Vessel and also an arival and seized the same under Ex.P6 and sent the accused to Judicial custody. P.W.13 made a request to Court to send the material objects for Chemical Analysis. After completing the investigation, P.W.13 filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate Court on 26.02.2010 against the accused for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
4.Based on the above material, the Trial Court framed charges for an offence Under Section 302 I.P.C as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 16 documents and 6 material objects were marked. 5.P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased. According to her, on 29.01.2010, early morning, her mother left for agricultural coolie work and she did not return home, she has further stated that she and her brother, after returning from the school, enquired about their mother and since it was informed by the neighbours that their mother had gone to hospital, they kept quiet and on the next day morning i.e., on 31.01.
2010, their grand-mother (PW2) came to their house and after knowing that the deceased did not return, they went in search of their mother and finally they found a fully burnt body near Rendavathu patthi Vaikkal and she identified the deceased as her mother and thereafter she preferred a complaint, Ex.P1. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, on 31.01.2010 at about 7.00p.m, she started searching for the deceased and found the dead body in the patthi vaikkal and she, accompanied by P.W.1, went to Kuthalam Police station and gave a complaint. P.W.3 has spoken that he was studying in I.T.I and on 29.01.2010, when he was in Manjal Vaikkal bridge, along with P.W.4 and others, at 5.45 p.m, they saw some fire near the Renganatha Iyer paddy field and at that time, the accused came in the opposite direction and PWs.
3 and 4 enquired about the fire, the accused did not give proper answer. P.W.4 has also reiterated the same, in his evidence. P.W.5 is the Mahazar witness, who has spoken about recovery of M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6. P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and gave post mortem report. P.W.8 is the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Laboratory, Thanjavur, who conducted chemical examination on the material objects and gave a report. P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint under Ex.P.13. P.W.10 is the Head Constable who took the F.I.R to the Judicial Magistrate Court. P.W.11 is the head constable who handed over the dead body to the post mortem. P.W.12 is the Dog Squared Trainee.
He has spoken about the work done by him to find out the accused, but he could not identify the accused. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and arrested the accused and recovered the material objects and filed the final report.
6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.
7. Heard Ms.S.Deepika, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the records.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance available to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
9.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.3 and 4 are the two eye witnesses to the occurrence, who have seen the accused at the time of occurrence near the place of occurrence and the above said circumstance would clearly prove the guilt of the accused and hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. At the outset, we should say that in a case of this nature, it is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond all reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain, without any break, so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Keeping the above broad principle in mind, let us now go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution. 11.Except the evidence of P.Ws.2,3 and 4, there is no other evidence available to prove the guilt of the accused. Even PWs.3 and 4 did not see the accused near the Rendavathu patthi vaikkal at the time of occurrence. It is their evidence that they saw fire flames, and at that time the accused came in the opposite direction and when they enquired about the same, he did not give any proper answer. Except that there is no other evidence available on the side of the prosecution.
12. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. They only saw the accused coming on the other side of the river, which alone cannot be a ground to link the accused with murder. Even for motive, absolutely there is no evidence.
13.In the above said circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused merely on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 4. The prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of accused. Hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
14. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Sessions Case No.216 of 2010 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nvi To 1.The Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kuthalam Police Station, Nagapattinam 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Mayiladuthurai-1.
5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam.
7. The District Collector, Nagapattinam.
8. The Director General of Police, Mylapore
9. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore. + 1 cc to Mr.D. Paarivendhan, Advocate SR.30254 Crl.A.No.433 of 2014 SCD(CO) EU 12.1.17