Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4894
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Sumathy
Versus
State, rep. by the Inspector of Police
Crl. A. No.540 of 2010
Decided On : 11-11-2010
For the Appellant:S.N. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 201 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, IPC Section 201 - The court found the accused guilty under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of body parts, extra-judicial confession, and witness testimonies, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for it to point to the hypothesis that no one else could have committed the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of body parts, an extra-judicial confession, and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.
Issues: The key issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and held that it must point to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one else could have committed the offense.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were sustained, and the criminal appeal was dismissed.
(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to the judgement dated 24.6.2004 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No.517 of 2003, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:
(i) The accused/appellant is the wife of the deceased Shanmugavelu. P.W.2 was her son. They were residing in a house belonging to P.W.6 on rental basis. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the sister and brother of the deceased respectively. The deceased complained to his relatives and also to the co-workers that the accused developed illicit intimacy with the other deceased/accused Thangavelu, who died ten days after the commission of crime in question. P.W.6 often noticed the frequent quarrel between the accused/appellant and the deceased in respect of her conduct.
(ii) On the date of occurrence that was on 6.4.2003, P.W.2 witnessed his father sleeping in a cot at about 9 p.m. and he left for his work. Thereafter, at about 12.00 night, P.W.6 witnessed that the accused/appellant and the deceased/accused Thangavelu were proceeding with M.O.3 fish cart. When P.W.6 questioned the appellant/accused about her husband, she replied that her husband has gone to Maduranthagam to see his mother. At about 1 a.m. P.W.13 found the accused/appellant and the deceased/accused stood in front of the shop along with a gunny bag and the fish cart. P.W.1, a passer by, P.W.3 and P.W.4 witnessed the limbs of the dead body at the Chinmaya Nagar bridge at about 9 a.m. on 7.4.2003. The trunk of the dead body was found under another bridge located nearby.
(iii) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent-police and gave Ex.P1 complaint, on the strength of which a case in Crime No.494 of 2003 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P14 Express D.I.R. Was despatched to the Court. P.W.14 Inspector of Police took up investigation and proceeded to the spot and prepared Observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P15 where the limbs of the dead body was found. He conducted inquest on the limbs of the dead body and prepared Ex.P18 inquest report. Thereafter, he prepared Observation mahazar Ex.P3 and rough sketch Ex.P7 in the place where the trunk of the body was found. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the same and prepared inquest report Ex.P18.
(iv) Thereafter, both the trunk and the limbs were sent to the Government Hospital for post-mortem. P.W.14 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. In the meanwhile, the accused/appellant made an oral confession to P.W.7, a hotel owner, to whom, she and the deceased used to supply water, about the occurrence. P.W.7 left for his native place and returned only on 15.4.2003.
(v) P.W.14 arrested the accused/appellant on 11.4.2003 and on arrest, she came forward to give confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P5. Pursuant to the same, she produced M.O.2 knife and M.O.3 fish cart and M.O.4 pillow and the same were recovered in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar. She took the police party near the Metro water pumping station compound and identified the head portion of the dead body and the same was also recovered under the cover of mahazar.
(vi) P.W.14 conducted inquest on the head of the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P22. P.W.10 identified the dead body as that of his brother. Thereafter, all the three parts were put together and sent for conducting post-mortem. P.W.11 Doctor conducted post-mortem and has given opinion in the post-mortem Certificates Ex.P10 a
