IMPORTANT POINT
A natural witness, a rustic woman, in agitated mood who earlier escaped molestation and later saw murder, is bound to commit mistakes in her testimony. The Court should appreciate these mistakes and accused should not be acquitted on these minor mistakes like wrongly naming the other eye-witnesses.

Headnote:(i) I.P.C. 1860. Sections 354, 302 and 201 - Attempt to outrage modesty of a woman, when she narrated it to her paternal uncle who met, his murder by sickle and concealment of his head in bush. P.W. 1 as eye witness, the victim for outraging her modesty, not believed by High Court due to mistakes in naming other eye witnesses and as to chasing given - P.W. 2 (Child witness) daughter of deceased not believed - Whether the line of reasoning adopted by High Court in appreciating evidence of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 (a child witness) is correct? (No) - Result - Acquittal set aside. (Para 27)
       Held: Prom the evidence of P.W. 1 it is clear that she graphically gave an account as to the happenings. Being a rustic woman, in that agitated mood she might have committed one or two mistakes in the actual identification or as to who chased accused 1 or accused 2. These, in our considered view, are bound to happen. Only a tutored witness can depose in a parrot-like fashion. On the contrary, a natural witness is bound to commit mistakes. In the instant case the mistakes are so inconsequential and immaterial when she mentions the name of Muthu wrongly instead of Deiveegan. We are unable to see as to how on that score it should be held that her evidence does not inspire confidence. Equally, we are of the view that the presence or absence of the sheep or goats whether noted or not can have no bearing on the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the failure of P.W. 11 to note their presence would not affect the case of the prosecution. (para 20)
       The characterisation that the evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence as the High Court has held, seems to be wrong. Normally, in a village no woman would come forward, unless it is true, with a plea that her modesty was outraged. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the State, by such statement, her very honour was at stake. Coming as she does from a cloistered society her whole future would become bleak. After all, what was the motive for her to say this against the accused. It has not been brought out in cross-examination that there was any enmity between P.W. 1 on the one hand and the accused on the other. She would not even implicate a juvenile accused. (para 21)
       Her failure to state in the report (Ex. P-1) the details, should not make the court reject her evidence. (para 22)
       The doubt raised by the High Court that Ex. P-1 was not prepared on that day seems unwarranted when it contains the initials bearing the time and the date as 9.30 F .M. and 28.7.1976. The learned Sessions Judge was fully satisfied by summoning the production of the dispatch register of Kallakudi Police Station that Exs. P-1 and P-5 were received on that day in the station. The suggestion by the defence that the learned Magistrate had obliged the police to put the date as 28.7.1976 and the time as 9.30 P.M. was rightly rejected as an extreme contention by the learned Sessions Judge which unfortunately was doubted by the High Court (para 23)
       The line of reasoning adopted by the High Court in appreciating the evidence of P.W. 2 is not correct. (para 24)
       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 Recovery in case under section 354, 302 and 201 - Pursuant to confessional statement to Magistrate, Police recovered severed head from bush and the weapon used. Whether relevant for conviction? (Yes).
       Held: One important factor, in our considered opinion, was missed by the High Court. Pursuant to the confessional statement of the first accused, the recovery of the severed head and M.O. 2 would be an admissible piece of evidence. After the arrest the first accused took P. W.11 and P.W. 6 to a bush in a place one mile north of Thappai village and produced the head. At that place an inquest was held in which the Inspector examined P.Ws. 1,2,4 and 5. Then, the first accused took them to another bush in the burial ground of S.P.G. Mission Church, from where M.O. 2 had been recovered concealed in the underwear (M.O. 7). This aruval, according to the analysts report, contained human blood. The dhoti worn by the accused, M.O. 8 which was seized from him also contained human blood. This part of the confession which led to the recovery of the severed head and M.O. 2, is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This goes a long way to corroborate the case of the prosecution. In the whole we are satisfied that the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court is erroneous and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we find no scope for the application of the ratio laid down at para 10 of page 644 in State of J. & K. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the defence. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

S. Mohan, J. - The respondents were accused 1 and 2. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of the Tiruchirapalli Division in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1976. Both the accused along with a juvenile Selvaraj were tried for using criminal force to Anjali (P.W. 1) with the intention of outraging her modesty at about 4.30 P.M. on 28th of July, 1976 at Pullambadi Village, an offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. The first accused Karuppusamy was also tried for the offence of murder of one Muthusamy of Thappai Village on the same day and at the same time and place, in that, he cut him with an aruval (sickle) and severed his head, an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The second accused Natarajan, was also tried under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In that the murder of Muthusamy was committed by the first accused, in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused.

2. The first accused was also tried for an offence of causing disappearance of evidence. In that, the severed head of Muthusamy was concealed in a bush, an offence under Section 201 I.P.C.

3. Juvenile Selvaraj who was present at the time of outraging the modesty of Anjali (P.W. 1) was also tried for an offence under Section 354 I.P.C.

4. The learned Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354, 302 and 201 I.P.C. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 354 I.P.C., imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 I.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently.

5. The second accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 354 I.P.C. However, he was found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

6. The juvenile accused was acquitted.

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence accused 1 and 2 took up the matter in appeal to the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1977. Both the accused were acquitted by the High Court holding that the prosecution had not proved the case against any of the accused satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubt.

8. The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as under:

On 28th of July, 1976 at about 4 P.M., P.W. 1 Anjali, aged 22 years was grazing her sheep in the fields of Pullambadi. Accused 1 and 2 and juvenile Selvaraj were also grazing their sheep nearby. They came near P.W. 1. Accused 1 suddenly pushed her down. The other two stood on either side of P.W. 1. Accused 1 pulled up her saree in order to outrage her modesty. However, she managed to escape and ran towards the road between Thappai and Pullambadi. Accused 1 was armed with an aruval (sickle) (M.O. 2), while accused 2 had also an aruval (M.O. 3). At that time the deceased Muthusamy, paternal uncle of P.W. 1 was going on a bicycle. His 11 year Old girl P.W. 2 Rajamani was carried by Muthusamy on the carrier of the bicycle as she was returning from the school. On hearing the shouts of P.W. 1 the deceased got down from the bicycle. P.W. 1 narrated the incident. By then the accused also came there. Thereupon the accused were questioned and the deceased Muthusamy told the accused that he would report the matter to the Village Panchayat. The accused became defiant and threatened the deceased only if he were left alive he would be able to report the matter to the Panchayat. At that time one Deiveegan from Thappai village came along the road. He advised them to go to their village and went away. Accused 2 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased. Accused 1 cut the hand. The deceased warded off the cut with his left hand. In that process, the thumb and the fingers were severed.

Accused 1 cut the deceased on the left hand, head, neck and right shoulder. The deceased fell down. Then Accused 1 cut off his head with his aruval. When P.W. 1 cried on seeing this ghastly sight P.Ws. 4 and 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(SC) 290

Cases Referred (1)