Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4289
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Shanmugam
Versus
State rep.by Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station
Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2010
Decided On : 30-09-2010
For the Petitioner:S. Premkumar, for C. Deivasigamani, Advocates.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The importance of voluntary and credible evidence, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 302 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcefully administered poison to his wife, leading to her death. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession given by the accused was deemed lacking credibility, and the testimonies of witnesses were found to be inconsistent and belatedly submitted. [ISSUES] The key issues were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court emphasized the importance of voluntary and credible evidence, highlighting the lack of credibility in the extra-judicial confession and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The delay in submitting crucial documents to the court was also noted as fatal to the prosecution's case. [FINAL DECISION] The appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The fine amount was ordered to be refunded, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chengalpattu and aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment of R.I. for life imposed, vide Judgment dated 25.02.2010, has preferred this appeal. The appellant/accused was also charged under Section 498(A) of IPC. However, he was acquitted from the said charge by the trial Court.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-
The deceased viz., Chandra is the wife of the accused/appellant and the marriage between them was solemnized on 24.6.2001. Out of wedlock, two children were born to them.
3. The appellant/accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and on account of it, they used to pickup frequent quarrel between them and on such occasions, the deceased used to go to her parental home. In pursuant to the panchayat, the deceased asked to go and live with her husband/appellant. The appellant had sold the jewels of his wife and purchased ducks and for administering injections to ducks, the appellant went to the house of his father-in-law/P.W.1 and got a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
4. On 31.03.2007, when the wife of the appellant/deceased was proceeding to her sister’s house to attend the ear-boaring ceremony of her children, the appellant restrained her and he took the Thali Chain of his wife. Thereafter, the appellant quarrelled with his wife and on 01.04.2007, he pledged the Thali chain of his wife for a sum of Rs.1,500/-, consumed alcohol and again started quarrel with his wife. The deceased/wife of the appellant unable to bear with the same, has told him that he is always suspecting her fidelity and also beating her and hence, she will die and asked him to bring poison.
5. On 02.04.2007, at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Chandra went along with her child and at that juncture, the appellant consumed alcohol, went to Mamandur to procure pesticides and came to Melathangal lake, wherein the deceased was lying. At about 10.00 a.m., on that day, the appellant told the deceased that she only asked for poison and he brought it and he opened the same, tried to administer the same forcefully, and when it was prevented, he slapped the deceased and consequently, she fallen down.
The appellant also kicked the deceased on her chest and stomach.
6. P.W.26-Revathi who was on the way, saw the occurrence and since the deceased became unconscious, the appellant asked P.W.26 to procure some water. When the appellant tried to administer water in to the mouth of the deceased, it does not go into her mouth. The accused put his lungi on the deceased, went along with the child and informed P.W.11 about the condition of his wife and asked him to save his wife and also informed him that he is going to inform her father/P.W.1. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was absconding.
7. P.W.1-father of the deceased on coming to know of the occurrence, went to Thoosi Police Station at Thiruvannamalai District on 02.04.2007 evening hours and lodged a complaint to P.W.19-Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P1. P.W.19, based on Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.103/2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the FIR was marked as Ex.P13. P.W.19 forwarded the copies of FIR to his higher officials as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
8. P.W.25-Deputy Superintendent of Police, after receipt of FIR, has commenced the investigation, went to the scene of occurrence at about 6.00 a.m. on 03.04.2007 and prepared the scene mahazar under Ex.P3 and also drew a Rough Sketch under Ex.P27 and he also recovered Material Objects under the cover of mahazar Ex.P4. Photographs were also taken. P.W.25 examined the witnesses and after the receipt of report from the Village Administrative Officer with regard to the confession made by the accused, the case was altered under the alteration report Ex.P28. P.W.25 handed over the investigation to the Deputy
