Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4382
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
A. Murali
Versus
State rep.by its Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2009
Decided on: 24-10-2009
For the Appellant:G.J. Baskarnarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Babu Muthu Meeran, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the significance of producing credible evidence to support the case.
Headnote:
302 IPC - Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - [302 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting the failure of the prosecution to produce medical evidence and the statement made by the deceased to the doctor. The court found that the evidence of self-immolation presented by the defense was credible and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged and found guilty under Section 302 IPC for setting his wife ablaze, resulting in her death. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's guilt, while the defense argued that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide by self-immolation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the failure to produce medical evidence and the statement made by the deceased to the doctor. The evidence of self-immolation presented by the defense was considered credible, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, specifically regarding the circumstances of the deceased's death and the appellant's involvement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the prosecution to produce crucial medical evidence and the statement made by the deceased to the doctor, as well as the credibility of the evidence of self-immolation presented by the defense.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant/accused was acquitted of the charge. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless his presence was required in connection with any other case, and any fine amount paid by him would be refunded.
M. Chockalingam, J.
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.65 of 2008, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded the life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus:
(a) The deceased Prema is the sister of P.W.1. The appellant/accused is her husband. The marriage between the deceased and the appellant took place nine years prior to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours. The appellant/accused had illicit intimacy with so many ladies, so that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. This fact was known to the neighbours including P.Ws.3 and 4. On 212. 2007 at about 4.00 PM., Prema informed to P.W.2 by phone that she wants to go to the temple, so that he would come there. Accordingly, at about 5.30 PM, P.W.2 went to the house. At that time, the accused and the deceased were quarreling. P.W.2 left for taking a cup of tea outside and after half-an-hour, he was coming back. Pursuant to the quarrel, the accused poured kerosene on his wife Prema and lit fire and he was about to run from the place of occurrence and the entire incident was noticed by P.W.2. On hearing the distressing cry, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and all of them had put off the fire and an information was given to P.W.1 and he rushed to the house of Prema. He enquired with Prema and she informed him that it was the accused who poured kerosene and set her ablaze. P.W.1 and others took Prema to the Dharmapuri Government Hospital, where she was declared dead. Thereafter P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent Police Station on 212. 2007 at about 10.30 AM and gave Ex.P-1 complaint to P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police.
(b) On the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.1607 of 2007 under section 302 IPC and the express F.I.R. Ex.P-6 was despatched to the Court and a copy of the same was served upon the Inspector of Police, P.W.10. On receipt of the copy of the first information report, P.W.10 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection, prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar, Ex.P-7 rough sketch and thereafter, recovered M.Os.1 to 4 in the presence of the witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-3 and he caused the photographs to be taken through P.W.7 and the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.5 series. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of post-mortem along with his requisition.
(c) On receipt of the said requisition, P.W.8, doctor attached to the Dharmapuri Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Prema and gave a postmortem certificate, Ex.P-5 wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to burn injuries i.e.17 to 26 hours prior to the autopsy. Pending investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused on 212. 2007 at about 4.30 PM, who gave the confession statement and the same was recorded. He was sent for judicial remand and the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, the Investigating officer filed the final report against the accused before the Court.
(d) The case was committed to the Court of Session, Dharmapuri and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also relied on 14 exhibits and 5 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials. On doing so, the trial Judge took
