SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 779

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R. RAMALINGAM
Sujatha - Appellant
Versus
State rep.by Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 2002
Decided On : 21 March 2006

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate. For the Respondent: E. Raja, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Benefit of doubt extended to acused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Murder - Conviction- Eye-witnesses turned hostile - Dying declarations not consistent - Evidence insufficient to implicate accused -Benefit of doubt extended to acused.

       

Judgment :-

(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code filed against the judgment dated 19.11.2002 in S.C.No.153 of 2002 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.)

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

Sujatha, the appellant, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

2. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:-

"(a) The deceased in this case is the husband of the accused. They got married three years back. The deceased is a Carpenter. He is a drunkard and used to come late in the night and beat the accused. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 07.11.2000, he came late at about 10.00 PM. The accused Sujatha asked him as to why he came late night and there was a wordy quarrel. The deceased thereupon, beat the accused and demanded to supply food to him. However, he was not given food. Therefore, the deceased slept inside the house.

(b) At about 12''0 clock midnight, he smelt of kerosene. When he woke up, he saw that the accused poured kerosene on him. Then, she brought a chimney lamp and set fire on him. Then, the neighbours, P.Ws.1 to 3 poured water on him and put out the fire. The information was conveyed to the relatives of the deceased and the accused and all came and scolded the accused. The accused went outside.

(c) P.W.1 Rajavelu and P.W.5 Vaithilingam took the deceased to the Srimushnam Police Station. Then, the Police directed to take the deceased to the Government Headquarters, Vridhachalam.

(d) At about 9.00 AM on 08.11.2000, P.W.16 Dr.Kasthuri admitted the deceased in the hospital and found 80% burns all over the body. The deceased told the doctor that at about 1.00 AM, his wife poured kerosene and burnt him with the help of her father and brother. Ex.P-10 is the copy of Accident Register. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore.

(e) At about 12.10 PM, P.W.13 Dr.Senthamizhselvi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore, examined him and issued Ex.P-5, the copy of the Accident Register.

(f) On receipt of intimation, P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-14 statement from the deceased Murugan. A case was registered for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. P.W.19 Inspector of Police took up investigation.

(g) In the meantime, P.W.15, Dr.Srimathi attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, requesting him to come to the hospital and record dying declaration from the deceased.

(h) According to P.W.14, Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore came and recorded the dying declaration Ex.P-7 from him. As per Ex.P-7, the deceased told the Magistrate that on 07.11.2000, in his house, the accused poured kerosene and set fire on him.

(i) On 10.11.2000 at about 7.10 PM, Murugan died. The intimation was sent to P.W.19, Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the offence was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. On 11.11.2000, the inquest was held and the body was sent for post-mortem.

(j) P.W.17, Dr.Parthasarathy conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P-12 post-mortem certificate, giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of 95% burn injuries.

(k) On 21.11.2000, P.W.19 arrested the accused and sent her for judicial custody. Material objects were sent for chemical examination. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C.

(l) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-23 were filed and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.

(m) The plea of the accused, while she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is one of denial. No evidence was adduced on the side of defence.

(n) The trial Court relied upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top