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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 517

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Devendran
Versus
Inspector of Police, Alangayam
Crl. A. No. 56 of 1999
Decided On : 28-02-2006

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:V. Karthic for T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent:V. Arul, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

Delay in F.I.R. reaching Court shows that report given to Police must have been suppressed by Prosecution.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 304(1) - Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 118 - Murder - Conviction - Evidence of child eye-witness suffering from serious infirmities - Extra-judicial confession made before V.A.O. - Delay in F.I.R. reaching Court also shows that report given to police must have been suppressed by Prosecution - Prosecution case rejected as false.

       

Judgment :-

K.N. Basha, J.

This appeal is preferred by a sole accused challenging his conviction under Section 304 (I) I.P.C. and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in S.C.No. 54 of 1997 by the Judgment dated 11.01.1999.

2. Theappellant faced the trial in the following backdrop:

(a) The deceased was married to the appellant six years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of the wed-lock between the accused and the deceased, two children were born and died subsequently. The accused was leading happy married life with the deceased for two years. Thereafter, there were misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased and the accused was residing separately. When deceased scolded the accused for that the accused beat the deceased and kicked her. A panchayat was convened in the village and thereafter, the accused and the deceased were living together once again. The accused beat the deceased and she was driven away from the house. The deceased informed to the panchayat, when it was convened once again, that she is not willing to go to the house of the accused, her husband. Thereafter, the deceased was living with her mother, P.W.2 andgave a report against the accused to the Thiruppathur police station three months prior to the occurrence.

(b) Onthe date of occurrence i.e. on 30.6.1996 at 3.00 p.m., the deceased along with P.W.2, her mother, P.W.3 and one Ramani, went to the rice mill and since there was no power supply at that time, P.W.2 sent the deceased along with P.W.3 and one Ramani to her house and she went to the house of P.W.4. Within few minutes she heard hue and cry of the deceased from the pathway to Kanavaikal. On hearing the same, P.W.2 ran to the scene with P.W.4 and the father of P.W.4. At that time, she found the deceased lying on the road and the accused was running with knife, M.O.1. Thereafter, P.W.2 went near the deceased and found her dead with injuries on her head, left hand and on several parts of the body. P.W.2 was simply sitting at the place of occurrence and P.W.3 and one Ramani went to inform the villagers about the occurrence.

(c) P.W.1, who is the Village Administrative Officer of Poongulam, has stated that on 30.6.1996 at 4.30 p.m. the accused came to his office with blood stained weapon, knife, and informed him that he has murdered his wife Mathammal at 4.00 p.m. Thereafter P.W.1 enquired the accused about the actual occurrence. It is further stated by P.W.1 that the accused stated to him that his wife was having illicit intimacy with one Thirupathi and the accused has also warned the deceased as a result of which, there was a quarrel between the said Thirupathi and the accused. P.W.1 also stated that the accused informed him on the date of occurrence that the deceased was coming along with P.W.3 and one Ramani and at that time one Janakan came near the deceased and while the accused also came near the deceased, the said Janakan ran away from the scene. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the accused further informed that on seeing the same, the accused provoked and cut the deceased indiscriminately. P.W.1 further stated that he has recorded the statement of the accused and obtained signature from the accused. P.W.1 also signed the statement given by the accused. Ex.P.1 is the statement of the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 took the accused along with the statement, Ex.P.1 and knife, M.O.1, to the Alangayam police station and there he has given the statement, Ex.P.1, along with his report, Ex.P.2 to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 6.00 p.m.

(d) P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P.2, the report, registered the case in Crime No. 157 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.12 prepared the Express First Information Report and sent the same to the higher officials and Court. Ex.P.13 is the express First Information Report. He recovered M.O.1, knife, under Form 95. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and
































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top