The court's decision highlights the importance of considering all the circumstances of a case, including the reliability of witness statements and the credibility of the accused's explanation, in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EVIDENCE - STATEMENT OF WITNESS - TRANSFER OF EARLIER STATEMENT TO RECORD OF SESSIONS TRIAL - REQUIREMENT OF ORDER UNDER S. 288, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE - USE OF EARLIER STATEMENT - CONDITIONS - CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING PREFERENCE FOR EARLIER STATEMENT - EXPLANATION OF ACCUSED - SUFFICIENCY - ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:

Periyasamy was convicted of murdering his wife, Kaveri Ammal, by striking her with a koduval. The only eyewitness, Pappayee, initially gave a statement incriminating Periyasamy but later changed her statement in the Court of Session. The Sessions Judge relied on Pappayee's earlier statement as substantive evidence under S. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the High Court confirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge's failure to pass a formal order transferring Pappayee's earlier statement to the record of the Sessions trial was a technical irregularity, but it did not prejudice Periyasamy since he was informed that the statement was being used under S. 288 and was given an opportunity to respond. The Court found that Pappayee's earlier statement was more reliable than her later statement, considering the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the two sheds were situated opposite each other and the door of the shed where the murder took place was open, allowing Pappayee to see the occurrence. The Court also found that Periyasamy's explanation for his absence at the time of the murder and his motive for killing his wife were not credible. Periyasamy's attempt to commit suicide after discovering the murder further indicated his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sessions Judge's failure to pass a formal order transferring the earlier statement to the record of the Sessions trial rendered the statement inadmissible as substantive evidence. 2. Whether Pappayee's earlier statement was more reliable than her later statement. 3. Whether Periyasamy's explanation for his absence at the time of the murder and his motive for killing his wife were credible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of an order under S. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transferring an earlier statement to the record of a Sessions trial is a technical requirement, and its omission does not render the statement inadmissible as substantive evidence if the accused is informed that the statement is being used under S. 288 and is given an opportunity to respond. 2. In determining the reliability of a witness's statement, the court should consider all the circumstances of the case, including the witness's relationship with the accused, the consistency of the witness's statements, and the presence of corroborating evidence. 3. An accused's explanation for his absence at the time of the crime and his motive for committing the crime should be carefully scrutinized, and if found to be incredible, may be used as evidence of guilt.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Periyasamy for the murder of his wife.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, January 18, l962, by which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant Periyasami under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death imposed on him. The facts of the case are as follows:-

Periyasamy was charged with the murder of his wife Kaveri Ammal on the morning of May 11, 1965, at 6 a. m. at a place in Kirambur where they were residing in what is called a shed in the record of the case. Opposite to this shed was another shed in which Periyasamy s brother with his wife Pappayee (P. W. 1) was residing. Periyasamy and Kaveri Ammal had been married for a period of two years during which time Kaveri Ammal used to go away frequently to her parents place, and the motive suggested is that it used to enrage the appellant Periyasamy. On the morning of the day of occurrence, Pappayee heard the cry "Ayyo, ayyo", and she states that she saw Periyasamy striking his wife with a koduval. Pappayee raised an alarm. Periyasamy thereupon threw the koduval away and retired to his shed and taking hold of a rope climbed a tree. He tied one end of the rope to a limb of the tree and another round his neck and jumped, but meanwhile the neighbours had assembled there and they caught him and cut him down from the tree and laid him on a cot. Periyasamy did not die though there is evidence to show that he had some bruises round his neck.

2. Meanwhile a brother of Periyasamy by name Chinna ran to their father and informed him about the occurrence. The father, without going to verify what had happened, went over to the police station House and lodged a report, saying that his younger son had informed him that Periyasamy had cut down his wife with a koduval and attempted to hang himself and that he was making the report. In the last sentence of this report, it was mentioned that Pappayee had witnessed the occurrence.

3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses but we are concerned only with one, namely, Pappayee, P. W. I, who is the solitary eye-witness in the case. It appears that Pappayee changed her statement in the Court of Session by leaving out the name of Periyasamy as the assailant of Kaveri Ammal. She was, therefore, declared hostile by the Court and was allowed to be cross-examined under S. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Her previous statement was also brought on the record of the case. This statement of Kaveri Ammal forms the foundation of the case against Periyasamy, corroborated by the other evidence about his conduct and the motive for the commission of the offence.

4. The High Court and the Court below have acted upon the statement of Pappayee made in the committal Court in preference to the statement she made in the Court of Session, and have based the conviction by accepting her previous version. In this appeal, Mr. B. D. Sharma naturally attacked the evidence of Pappayee from various angles and also tried to establish that the judgment of the High Court did not satisfy the standards for an appellate judgment as laid down by this Court, particularly in a case dealing with the confirmation of a death sentence. We shall, therefore, examine these contentions in detail.

5. The first contention raised by Mr. Sharma is that the Sessions Judge did not comply with the provisions of S. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as he did not pass any order transferring the earlier statement to the record of the Sessions trial. We have not been able to find in the original record of the case, which was brought to our notice, any order specifying the transfer of the earlier deposition to the record of the Sessions Court under S. 288. It appears, however, that the practice of this Court is to contradict a witness with the earlier statement and parts thereof, after declaring him hostile and then to use the record of the earlier statement as substantive evidence. It may be stated that it is highly d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis