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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 2698

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
M. Veerappan
Versus
State rep.by Inspector of Police, Keezhaiyur Police Station, Nagapattinam District
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 996 OF 2007
Decided on: 30-07-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :M. Sankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N.R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

IPC - Offences under Sections 302 and 201 - 302, 201 IPC - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, last seen theory, and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court applies the principles of circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession to conclude that the accused committed uxoricide by strangulating his wife with a saree, leading to asphyxia and death. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable and trustworthy witness testimony and the need for corroboration of extra judicial confession.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was found guilty for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for strangulating his wife and concealing the crime by putting the body in a channel. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, last seen theory, and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, and last seen theory. The court emphasized the reliability and trustworthiness of witness testimony and the need for corroboration of extra judicial confession.

Issues: The issues involved the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, and last seen theory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession to establish the guilt of the accused. The judgment emphasized the importance of reliable and trustworthy witness testimony and the need for corroboration of extra judicial confession.

Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

Judgment :-

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 110. 2005, made in S.C.No. 37 of 2005, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. By the impugned judgement, the appellant was found guilty for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly, was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the former offence, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the latter offence. The said conviction and sentence are under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case, as per the charge is that the accused Veerappan, on 6. 2004, at 8.30 a.m., near the land on the eastern bank of Achakkarai Channel, with an intention to kill his wife Muthammal, strangulated her neck with the help of the saree worn by her, and caused her instantaneous death and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In continuance of the same course of action, to conceal the commission of crime, the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased and put the same into the chanel water and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

3. The genesis of the prosecution version, as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial, are as follows:-

.(a) The accused Veerappan is the father of P.W.11, Senthilkumar and husband of the deceased Muthammal. They were doing vegetable vending business. They have two sons and a daughter. The first daughter was given in marriage and she was living with her husband separately. The accused and the deceased were living along with their two sons. The elder son is a Lorry Cleaner, while the younger is working in a provisional store. According to P.W.1, the accused was addicted to liquor and was in the habit of picking up quarrel with the deceased very often. The accused did not stay for about one month prior to the date of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 6. 2004 morning, the deceased and the two sons went for work. While the two sons returned home in the evening, the deceased did not turn up. The search made by P.W.11 (one of the son) and one Veerasamy ended in vain. On the next day also, the sons could not find out their mother. However, the accused father remained very quiet and irresponsible and when questioned by the sons, he replied that he has no affection for the deceased. Then, P.W.11 compelled the accused to accompany him to the Panchyatdars of the Village, where the accused disclosed the modus operandi adopted by him to commit the murder of his wife/deceased.

.(b) The evidence of P.W.6, is that when he was chatting with one Michael Raj at 8.00 a.m., on 6. 2004, he had seen the accused and the deceased together, near Achakkarai Channel, proceeding towards west, carrying a vegetable basket. Thereafter, while he was returning from Karapidagai to Kameswaram Bus-stand, he saw the accused alone with the vegetable basket in his hand in the same place. P.W.5 Village President, Ramalingam, to whom, the deceased Muthammal was supplying vegetables, also found the accused alone returning with vegetable basket in hand proceeding from south to north in Sinthamani Main Road at 11.00 a.m., on 6. 2004, and when P.W.5 questioned the accused, as to why his wife Muthammal did not accompany him, the accused replied that she is out of town and will be returning after two days.

(c) The accused went to the house of P.W.2, Councillor at 10.00 a.m., on 16. 2004 and revealed the commission of the crime and sought for his help. Then P.W.2 took the accused to P.W.1 Sivasubramanian, Village Administrative Officer at 10.45 a.m., to whom the accused gave voluntary confession statement, Ex.P.1, in the presence of village menials P.Ws.3 and 4 and the same was recorded. P.W.1 handed over the accused to the custody of the Village Menials P.W.3 and P.W.4 and went to the Achakkarai Channel and afte




















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top