Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1149
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Ramesh
Versus
State By Inspector of Police
Crl.Appeal.No.585 of 2007
Decided on: 16-04-2009
For the Appellant:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel, R. Selvarangan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kumaresan, P.P.(I/c), Advocate.
The inadmissibility of the Section 164 statement under Section 33 of the Evidence Act due to the absence of the accused's right to cross-examine the witness, the suspicion arising from the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, and the inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Delay in lodging complaint and registration of FIR - Inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence - Accused acquitted
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 449 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the accused had trespassed into the deceased's house and committed the offence of murder by strangulating her. The trial judge relied on motive, Section 164 statement, presence of accused at the place of occurrence, and oral evidence of eyewitnesses to convict the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of motive was feeble and not convincing. It held that the Section 164 statement was not substantive evidence and could only be used for corroboration and contradiction. The court also highlighted the irrelevance of the provisions relied on by the trial judge. Additionally, the court emphasized the inadmissibility of the Section 164 statement under Section 33 of the Evidence Act due to the absence of the accused's right to cross-examine the witness. The court further noted the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and registration of the FIR, which was viewed with suspicion. The medical evidence was found to be inconsistent with the ocular evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused through ocular and documentary evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and relevance of the Section 164 statement, the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and registration of the FIR, and the inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inadmissibility of the Section 164 statement under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, the suspicion arising from the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, and the inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence. These factors led the court to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment convicting the accused was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount paid by the accused was ordered to be refunded to him.
Raja Elango, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment made in S.C.No.110 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri convicting the appellant/accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC., and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 449 IPC., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence imposed as against the accused was ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
(i) The deceased Manjula is the wife of P.W.6 Chandrasekara Reddy. The accused is the cousin brother of P.W.6. The accused had been compelling the deceased Manjula several times for sexual intercourse. Since she had not heeded for that he decided to do away with her life. On 19.05.1998 at about 8.45 a.m. in the house of the deceased Manjula at Nanjapuram in the absence of P.W.6 Chandrasekara Reddy who is the husband of the deceased Manjula, the accused with a criminal intention of committing the offence of murder had trespassed into her house and pushed on her back on the cot, sat over her chest and strangulated her neck with hands and stuffed her mouth with hands so as to prevent any alarm and as a result of which she had died instantaneously due to asphyxia due to strangulation.
(ii) When P.W.1 came back to his home he heard hue and cry from the house of Manjula. His daughter Radhammal had also made alarm and on hearing the sound of his daughter, he rushed to the house of the deceased Manjula, While so, the accused Ramesh was present in the house of Manjula. When the accused Ramesh was questioned by P.W.1, he had replied as if Manjula had voluntarily committed suicide and that he had brought her down and gave some water and subsequently she had died. At about 10.00 a.m. when P.W.3, P.W.4 were present near the Village temple they were called by P.W.1 who is the Oor Gounder of the village. When they went nearer to the house of the deceased Manjula, they saw the accused Ramesh was standing by the side of the dead body of Manjula. the Body of the Manjula found lying on the cot. Thereafter the accused had run way from the place of occurrence. When P.W.6 Chandrasekara Reddy had alighted from the bus at Shoolagiri Police Station at about 5.00 p.m. he was informed by one Chandrappa saying that his wife was dead. Immediately, he had rushed to his native place in an auto and saw his wife made to lie on her back on the cot. He had also seen an injury on the left side of her neck. When he asked P.W.1 as to what happened to his wife, then P.W.1 had disclosed the incident. After having deliberation with elders P.W.1 went to Shoolagiri Police Station to lodge a complaint Ex.P1.
(iii) On the basis of complaint given by P.W.1, on 19.05.1998 at about 10.00 p.m. P.W.13 the Inspector of Police received a complaint and Registered a case in Crime No.304/98 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., in Ex.P5 printed First Information Report. The express first information report was sent to the police higher officials. In the meantime at about 10.00 a.m, P.W.6 had enquired with Radhammal as to what was happened? She had also narrated the incident which took place in the morning. On the same day, at about 11.00 P.M. P.W.13 Inspector of Police went to Nanjapuram Village and inspected the place of occurrence in the light of petromax lamp as well as in the light of electronic lamp in the presence of P.W.12 Maranapalli Village Administrative Officer and his village menial and prepared an observation Mahazar (Ex.P13) and he had also drawn a rough sketch (Ex.P.16). Then P.W.13 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter he had started conducting of inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatars and after completi
