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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
P. D. Dinakaran, R. Regupathi, JJ.
P. Thangavelu
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, P. K. Pet Police Station, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District
Crl.A. No. 417 of 2006
Decided on : 5th March, 2008.

Advocates appeared:
T. S. N. Prabakaran for Appellant.
N. R. Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for Respondent.

Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen alive theory, voluntary confession, and identification of the deceased's body, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

302 and 201 I.P.C. - Conviction and Sentence - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was tried for charges under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. for causing death to his wife and burying her to screen the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen alive theory, the accused's voluntary confession, and the identification of the deceased's body.

Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence, the identity of the deceased, and the nature of the assault by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen alive theory, the accused's voluntary confession, and the identification of the deceased's body, to establish the guilt of the accused.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. on the appellant.

JUDGMENT

R. REGUPATHI, J.

The appellant herein was tried by learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur, in Sessions Case No.72 of 2001, for charges under Sections-302 and 201 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge found the appellant/accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the conviction under Section 302I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months; and three years R.I. for the offence under Section 201I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.1, 000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for three months. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

2. On 19.4.2000, at 2.30 A.M., the accused, who was residing in a hut at Edapattarai @ Padmanabhapuram Village which falls within the jurisdiction of R.K. Pettai Police Station, called his wife for sex and on her refusal, with an intention to cause death, assaulted her on the right cheek below the right ear by giving a violent fist and as a result thereof, she became unconscious. Thereafter, he strangled her by tying a rope around the neck and thereby caused death to her; hence, the trial Judge framed the first charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

After committing the murder of the deceased, the accused carried the dead body to a nearby brook adjacent to the sand-quarry and buried the body with an intention to screen the offence committed by him; thus, the second charge under Section 201I.P.C. was framed, and the case was taken up for trial.

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfurled by its witnesses, is as follows:-

a) PW-1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Padmanabhapuram Village. On 3.5.2000, at about 9 A.M., the accused came to him and gave a statement under Ex.P1 to the effect that his wife/deceased refused his call for sexual intercourse, whereupon, he assaulted her below her cheek and after she had become unconscious, he tied rope around her neck and shifted the dead body to a nearby brook and buried her there. Thereafter, PW-1 took the accused to the police station accompanied by PWs-2 and 3, V.A.Os. of neighbouring Villages, who were standing at the Bus-Stand.

b) PW-16 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of the report given by PW-1 under Ex.P2, attested by PWs-2 and 3, along with the statement of the accused, registered a case in Crime No.232 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 302I.P.C. He prepared Express F.I.R. and despatched the same to his superior officers and the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ex.P8 is the Printed F.I.R.

c) PW-17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the Express Report, took up investigation and he was assisted by PW-16, the Sub Inspector of Police. He examined the accused and recorded his statement in the presence of witnesses. As the accused stated that he would show the place where he concealed the body of the deceased, PW-17 took him along with PW-1 and other witnesses to the scene of occurrence and the accused pointed out the place where he had buried the dead body. PW-17 instructed PW-13 and Village Thalayari (Village Head) to guard the place where the body was buried and returned back to the police Station. He gave a requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruttani, for exhumation of the dead body and a copy of such requisition was sent to PW-10 Tahsildar. He also made requisition to the Medical Officer, Chennai Medical College, for conducting post mortem over the dead body of the deceased at the site, where the dead body was buried. On 4.5.2000, PW-10 Tahsildar conducted enquiry, during which time, PW-17 was present and assisted him. PW-17 prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P5 and rough sketch under Exs.P-9 & P-10. He caused photographs of that place to be taken through a Photographer and MO-13 series are the photographs.

d) On




























































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