Back
2009(7) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Balaji — Appellant
versus
State Rep. by Insp. of Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2008
Decided on : 2-12-2009
Facts of the Case :
A1was prosecuted herein in for causing death of deceased with help of one A2 with whom she had developed illicit relations. Prosecution case that in furtherance of their object accused persons strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope. Immediately, thereafter, they dug a hole in the floor of the hut and buried the dead body in the said hole. Entire incident was witnessed by S, daughter of deceased and A1 who was threatened by accused persons that if she revealed occurrence to anybody, she would have to face dire consequences. Trial Court convicted accused persons relying upon evidence of PW.2, S who was ten years old at the time of Occurrence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
No fault could be found either with the judgment of the Trial Court or the High Court in convicting the appellant for the offence with which he had been charged. Having regard to the fact that the discovery of the body was made at the instance of PW.2. S the child witness, and the post-mortem conducted on the dead body was in consonance with the case made out by the prosecution, viz., that the deceased had been strangulated and throttled to death, there could be no reason to disbelieve S’s evidence which had withstood the test of cross-examination. Apart from that it could not be forgotten that accused no.2 was S’s mother and no reason was forthcoming as to why S should implicate the accused no.2 in the murder of her father. Even the attempt made on behalf of the accused to discredit the evidence of PW.2 by asserting that she was actually living at Kattunaickepatti during the relevant period was considered and rejected both by the Trial Court and the High Court, as both the Courts chose to rely on the evidence of PW.2 that only after the death of her father she was taken to Kattunaickepatti and from there to Madras. Hence held that no interference was warranted with the judgment of the Trial Court and High Court, convicting the appellant .Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2007, passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, mainly on the evidence of PW.2, the daughter of the accused No.2 who was ten years old on 23rd October, 1999, when the incident is said to have occurred.
2. The second accused in the trial, Dhanalakshmi, is the wife of the deceased, Chelliah Naicker. The first accused is the nephew of Chelliah Naicker. According to the prosecution case, the first accused and the second accused developed an illicit relationship. The first accused would visit the house of the deceased carrying liquour with him which he gave to the deceased, and, thereafter, indulge in illicit intimacy with the second accused. PW.2, Sundari, referred to hereinabove, is the child of the second accused and the deceased. At the time of the incident, the deceased and the first accused and Sundari were residing in a hut belonging to PW.4 at Rajiv Nagar, Tuticorin. According to the prosecution, on 23rd October, 1999, the first accused came to the house of the deceased along with a bottle of liquour as usual and handed over the same to the deceased. Thereafter, after having illicit relations with each other, both the accused decided to do away with the deceased and in furtherance of their object they took a nylon rope and strangulated the deceased. Immediately, thereafter, they dug a hole in the floor of the hut and buried the dead body in the said hole. It is the prosecution case that the entire incident had been witnessed by Sundari, who was threatened by the accused that if she revealed the occurrence to anybody, she would have to face dire consequences. One Papammal, who was examined as PW.3, is also alleged to have witnessed the digging of the hole by the accused persons and on being questioned, the accused persons are said to have informed him that they had killed the deceased as he was a continuous menace for them.
3. It appears that on 3rd November, 1999, PW.1, the father of the deceased came over to the house of the accused No.2 and asked about his son’s whereabouts from PW.2, Sundari. It also appears that Sundari narrated the entire incident to PW.1 and also showed him the place where the deceased was buried. Immediately thereafter, PW.1 and PW.2 went to Muthaipuram Police Station and narrated the entire occurrence to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW.13, and the same was reduced into writing and an FIR was prepared registering a case against the accused persons under Section 302 IPC. Copies of the same were sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, the Tahsildar, Tuticorin and to the higher police officials.
4. On receipt of the aforesaid information, PW.16, the Inspector of Police attached to Muthaipuram Police Station, went to the place of occurrence at 12.30 a.m. and deployed police security at the place of occurrence. He returned to the spot at 6.00 a.m. on 4th November, 1999 and with the help of PW.6, exhumed the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars. An inquest over the dead body was conducted by the Tahsildar and since the body had decomposed, on requisition, PW.7, the Doctor conducted post-mortem on the decomposed body. From the post-mortem report it appears that the Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased had died on account of man-handling and throttling and that he must have died 10 to 15 days prior to the date of autopsy. The skull of the dead body was also subjected to superimposition test by the Forensic Sciences department at Chennai and on examination of the bones and the skull, the opinion was that the skull could very well have belonged to the male individual, whose photograph was shown. On completion of investigation, final report was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which, relying on the evidence of P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
