Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4518
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Velumani
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2009
Decided on: 29-10-2009
For the Appellant:E. Kannadasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Babu Muthu Meeran, APP.
The dying declaration and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
498-A - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 109 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, the dying declaration of the deceased, and the deficiencies in the investigation. The court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
A1 was found guilty of pouring kerosene on his wife, causing burn injuries, and ultimately her death. A2 and A3 were acquitted of the charges. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the dying declaration of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found A1 guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, the validity of the dying declaration, and deficiencies in the investigation were key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, and the circumstantial evidence were crucial in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. were confirmed, while the conviction and sentence under section 498-A IPC were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the said charge.
M. Chockalingam, J.
Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, made in S.C.No.224 of 2007 whereby the appellant/A1 stood charged and tried under Section 498-A and 302 I.P.C., while A2 and A3 stood charged and tried under section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. On trial, A1 was found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively along with fine and default sentences, while A2 and A3 were acquitted of the said charge.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) A1 married the deceased Govindammal two years prior to the occurrence. A2 is the sister and A3 is the brother of A1. A male child was born to them but died subsequently. Few months after the marriage, he developed intimacy with one Govinthi wife of Sivakumar of the same village. Despite the advise given by the deceased, A1 continued to have illicit intimacy. Hence, often there was quarrel between the spouse. On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and the deceased went out of the house to go to her parental house. A2 and A3 dragged her inside the house and on their instigation, A1 poured kerosene on her and locked her inside the house and removed a tile from the roof and had thrown a lighted match stick inside the house and set her ablaze. The deceased sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and was given treatment.
(b) An intimation was given to the Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri District, by the medical person. P.W.8 who was functioning as Judicial Magistrate, rushed to the Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased between 11.20 p.m. and 11.50 p.m. and the dying declaration proceedings was marked as Ex.P.7. Despite treatment, she died at 3.00 a.m on 19. 2005. An intimation was given to the respondent Police Station.
(c) P.W.10 Head Constable of the respondent Police Station rushed to the Hospital. Since he was informed that the deceased died, he recorded the statement of P.W.1 which was marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1., a case came to be registered in Crime No.324/2005 under section 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R Ex.P11 was dispatched to Court. On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.12. He recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Govindammal in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P13 inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem.
(d) P.W.9, doctor on receipt of the requisition made by the Investigating Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Govindammal and gave his opinion in the post mortem certificate Ex. P.9 that the deceased died of hypovolumic shock due to extensive burn injuries.
(e) On 29. 2005 at 5.00 p.m. A1 was taken under police custody. He gave confessional statement in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.P14 Pursuant to the same, he produced a pump M.O.3 and the same was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.15 .Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. On his confessional statement, A2 and A3 were also arrested and they were also sent for judicial remand. On completion of the Investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report.
(f) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminati
