Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007(2) Crimes 350 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Balasubramanian & M. Jeyapaul, JJ.
Ravi @ Ravichandran & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 828 of 2005 and 722 of 2006
Decided on 09-02-2007

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl. A.828/2005 :Mr. K.V. Sridharan, Advocate.
For the Appellant in Crl. A. 722/2006 :Mr. S.N. Narasimhulu, Advocate.
For the Respondent ; Mr. N.R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
When a confessional statement is reduced into writing and same is marked before Court, there is no necessity for such a witness to speak word by word the confession given by him.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 449, 302 r/w 114 - Prosecution of accused persons two in number for trespassing upon house of deceased and causing her death by inserting forcibly a metal spoon inside her vagina after gagging her mouth - Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal against conviction - Evidence of prosecution witnesses that A1 and A2 had illicit intimacy with deceased - No case of prosecution that A1 and A2 had decided to kill deceased as she had developed some illicit intimacy with a third party - Motive part of prosecution found to be totally artificial - Categorical statement of PW4 that he witnessed the incident at midnight when he peeped inside house of deceased on hearing her distress voice - Surprising to note that no hue and cry made by PW4 on seeing accused attacking unarmed deceased - Delay in examination of Star witnesses PWs 4 to 7 - Quite unbelievable that neighbours PWs 4 to 7 who had witnessed ghastly crime not whispered to anyone about incident for about four long days - No verbatim statement given by Village Administrative Officer of extra judicial confession allegedly made by A1 to him - Even though Village Administrative Officer having referred to confessional statement reduced into writing, stated that statement recorded by him was confession given by accused - However no evidence to show that village administrative officer was known to A1 - Unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person - Untrustworthy testimony of Village Administrative Officer held liable to be rejected straightaway - No reason for A1 voluntarily confessing crime to PW9 when he was not known to him - No legal evidence on record to establish that A1 and A2 having trespassed upon house of deceased attacked her and caused her death - Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon testimony of PWs 4, 7 and 9 for convicting accused persons - Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 20 to 23, 27 to 31)
       Facts of the case :-
        1. The appellant accused persons two in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for trespassing upon house of deceased and causing her death by inserting forcibly a metal spoon inside her vagina after gagging her mouth. The trial Court convicted accused person u/s 341, 449, 302 r/w 114 of IPC.
        2. Aggrieved by said order of conviction and sentence, appellants have preferred present appeal.
        3. Findings of the Court : The Court held that Evidence of prosecution witnesses that A1 and A2 had illicit intimacy with deceased. No case of prosecution that A1 and A2 had decided to kill deceased as she had developed some illicit intimacy with a third party. Motive part of prosecution was found to be totally artificial. Categorical statement of PW4 that he witnessed the incident at midnight when he peeped inside house of deceased on hearing her distress voice. Surprising to note that no hue and cry was made by PWs 4 on seeing accused attacking unarmed deceased. There was delay in examination of Star witnesses PWs. 4 to 7. It was quite unbelievable that neighbours PWs 4 to 7 who had witnessed ghastly crime not whispered to anyone about incident for about four long days. No verbatim statement was given by Village Administrative officer of extra judicial confession allegedly made by A1 to him. Even though Village Administrative Officer having referred to confessional statement reduced into writing, stated that statement recorded by him was confession given by accused. However there was no evidence to show that village administrative officer was known to A1. Unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person. Untrustworthy testimony of Village Administrative Officer held liable to be rejected straightaway. No reason for A1 voluntarily confessing crime to PW9 when he was not known to him. There was no legal evidence on record to establish that A1 and A2 having trespassed upon house of deceased attacked her and caused her death. Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon testimony of PWs 4 and 7 for convicting accused persons. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

M. Jeyapaul, J. - The first accused prefers Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2005 and the second accused prefers Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2006.

2. A1 was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence under section 341 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 449 IPC and life imprisonment for offence under section 302 read with 114 IPC and A2 was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 449 IPC and life imprisonment for offence under section 302 IPC. Though A1 was not charged with offence under section 449 IPC, the Trial Court has chosen to convict him thereunder and sentenced as stated supra.

3. The charge is that A1 and A2 had illicit intimacy with the deceased Arayee, having trespassed upon the house of Arayee. A2 with an intention to cause death, inserted forcibly a metal spoon inside the vagina of Arayee when A1 facilitated him by gagging the mouth of Arayee and thereby A1 committed offences punishable under sections 341 and 302 and A2 committed offence punishable under section 302 read with 114 IPC respectively.

4. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined besides marking 23 documents and 6 Material Objects.

5. The brief text of the prosecution story, as unfolded by the witnesses examined on their side, is as follows :-

Kandasamy, PW1 is the son of the deceased Arayee. Arayee’s husband died ten years prior to the occurrence. At the first instance, the said Arayee developed illicit intimacy with A1 Ravi for about five long years. She also had illicit intimacy with A2 Subramaniam for quite some time. Kandasamy, PW1 was living separately from her mother Arayee. Arayee was living all alone in her house at Pethampatti.

6. Ayyar alias Ramalingam, PW4 is residing in front of the house of Arayee at Pethampatti. On 12.6.2001, at about 12.00 ‘O’ clock, midnight, PW4 came out of his house to pass urine. He heard the distress call from the house of Arayee. When he peeped into the house of Arayee, he found a small lantern burning there. A1 was found gagging the mouth of the deceased Arayee and A2, on his part, with all force at his command, inserted a big iron spoon into the vagina of the said Arayee. PW4, having been gripped with fear, went to bed. After ten minutes, he went to the house of Siddan, PW7 and informed him of the occurrence he witnessed. PW7 did not show any interest about the occurrence. Therefore, PW4 came down to his house and took his bed. PW1, having been informed of the murder of his mother, went to Steel Plant Police Station at Salem at about 2.15 a.m. on 13.6.2001 and gave a statement to the Sub Inspector of Police PW12. PW 12 recorded the statement, Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No. 617 of 2001 under section 174 Cr.P.C. He prepared printed FIR, Ex.P20 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate.

7. The Inspector of Police, PW13, who took up the investigation, arrived at the scene of occurrence at about 12.30 noon on 13.6.2001 and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P6 in the presence of PW8. He also drew rought sketch, Ex.P21 reflecting the scene of occurrence. He held inquest on the dead body of Arayee at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day and prepared inquest report, Ex.P22.

8. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 have spoken to the illicit intimacy of Arayee with A1 and A2 prior to the occurrence.

9. Dr. Vallinayagam, PW6 received requisition at about 5.25 p.m. on 13.6.2001 from the Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station (PW13) and commenced post-mortem examination on the dead body of Arayee at 5.30 pm on the said day. He found the following symptoms and injuries on the dead body of Arayee:

“1) A lacerated injury on the vagina wall on posterior aspect 3.5 cm x 2 cm x entering the neck of uterus through which entering the pelvic cavity. Blood clots present adherent to the injury (Ante mortem).

A metallic piece (hand of fuz;o) (18 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm) present in peritoneal cavity and preserved.

2) Abr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007(2) Crimes 350 (Mad.)MADRAS HIGH COURTR. Balasubramanian & M. Jeyapaul, JJ.Ravi @ Ravichandran & Anr. - AppellantsversusState - RespondentCriminal Appeal Nos. 828 of 2005 and 722 of 2006Decided on 09-02-2007

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a confessional statement is reduced into writing and same is marked before Court, there is no necessity for such a witness to speak word by word the confession given by him.

Cases Referred (2)

2007(2) Crimes 350 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Balasubramanian & M. Jeyapaul, JJ.
Ravi @ Ravichandran & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 828 of 2005 and 722 of 2006
Decided on 09-02-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
When a confessional statement is reduced into writing and same is marked before Court, there is no necessity for such a witness to speak word by word the confession given by him.