Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 928
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI
M. Marimuthu
Versus
State, Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.947 of 2005
Decided On : 14-03-2008
For the Petitioner: Jayasri Baskaran, Appointed as Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: N.R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The reliability of an extra judicial confession, the establishment of motive, and the application of exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Murder - Extra Judicial Confession - Section 302, Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. - 1, 2, 313, 24, 25, 26, 302, 304
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on the prosecution's evidence and an extra judicial confession. The appellant confessed to killing his wife due to her illicit relationship, but denied the confession during trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the extra judicial confession to be reliable and accepted it as evidence. The court also established the motive for the murder and concluded that the accused committed the offense due to grave and sustained provocation, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.
Issues: Reliability of extra judicial confession, motive for the murder, and applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of voluntary and true extra judicial confession, and the evidence of motive to establish the accused's guilt. The court also applied Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. to modify the conviction.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was modified from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., and the sentence was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount was confirmed with a partial refund if already paid.
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
The appellant is the sole accused and he was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore, in Sessions Case No.177 of 2005 on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 1.00 p.m. on 30.5.2004, he caused the death of his wife, Priya, by pushing her in the bed and pressing a pillow on her face with his right knee making her to gasp for breath and thereafter, by strangling her neck with a coir rope.
2. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 and 2 to substantiate its case. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined nor any documentary evidence was produced. After hearing the submissions of both sides, by the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge, accepted the prosecution version, as brought out through the oral and documentary evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The learned trial Judge also directed that on payment of the fine amount of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-shall be paid to P.W.2, father of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- to the son of the accused and deceased, to be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and Rs.5,000/- as fine in Court. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court.
1. The case of the prosecution, as could be culled out from the oral and documentary evidence, are stated as hereunder:-
The deceased Priya is the wife of the accused and P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. The accused fell in love with the deceased and about three years prior to the date of occurrence, they got married. Initially, their marriage was not accepted by their parents, but subsequently, the parents of the deceased accepted and also got their marriage registered in a Sub-Registrars office. They were residing at Aranmanipudur and a boy child was born to them and they named the child as Majnu Prakash. About four months prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased Priya developed illicit relationship with one Senthil, who was working in a tiles company nearby to the house of the deceased. On coming to know about this from the deceased herself, the accused, showing their one year old child, advised her not to continue with the illicit relationship and he also informed about this to the parents of the deceased when they visited their house. The parents of the deceased advised her and also cautioned the said Senthil not to come to the house of the deceased thereafter. But, the intimacy continued and due to this, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased.
2. On 30.5.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased told the accused about the visiting of Senthil the day before and informed him that she would go to Ayyan temple along with Senthil and that thereafter, she would live with Senthil. Since the deceased did not heed the advice of the accused, a quarrel ensued between them and on being provoked by the words uttered by the deceased and her adamant attitude, the accused pushed her on the bed, pressed her face with a pillow, stamped with his right knee and thereafter, strangled her neck with a coir rope and thus, caused her death.
3. At about 3.15 p.m., the accused appeared before P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Andipalayam, Thiruppur Circle, and confessed to him about the murder of his wife. P.W.1 reduced the statement given by the accused into writing, which is marked as Ex.P.1 in the case and obtained the signature of the accused and thereafter, prepared his report, Ex.P.2. P.W.1 took the accused along with Exs.P.1 and P.2 and reached the scene of occurrence along with his menial Jagadeesan and saw the deceased lying dead on the bed with a rope tied around her neck. Thereafter, he proceeded to the police station and handed over the accused to the police al
