Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4303
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C. NAGAPPAN, T. SUDANTHIRAM, JJ.
G. Neelamegam
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Venganur Police Station, Ariyalur District
Crl.A.No.714 of 2010
Decided on : 29-10-2011
For the Appellant :S. Shanmugavelayudam, Senior Counsel for A.V. Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.M.R. Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and credibility of extra judicial confession, the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC - The court relied on the extra judicial confession given by the accused to the Village Administrative Officer, which was admissible in evidence and found to be believable and acceptable. The confession was corroborated by the discovery of the buried body of the deceased, leading to the conclusion that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. The court also applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused, who failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused of murder and concealment of evidence, was convicted based on circumstantial evidence including an extra judicial confession and the discovery of the buried body of the deceased. The first accused married the deceased and his sister, and the deceased went missing after returning to the matrimonial home. The appellant confessed to murdering the deceased and burying her body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the extra judicial confession to be credible and relied on the discovery of the buried body as corroboration. It applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused, who failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the circumstances. The court concluded that the deceased died due to homicidal violence and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the extra judicial confession and its corroboration, as well as the cause of the deceased's death. The court also considered the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of admissibility and credibility of extra judicial confession, as well as the shift of burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It emphasized the importance of corroboration and inference in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC.
T. SUDANTHIRAM, J.
1. The appellant herein, who is an accused in S.C. No. 41 of 2009, on the file of the Sessions Court (FTC), Ariyaiur, stands convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The second accused in this case was acquitted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused has preferred this criminal appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the first accused is the husband of the deceased and the second accused is the sister of the deceased. The first accused married the second accused with the consent of the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased were living in a separate house and the first accused continued to live with his both wives. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased had a practice of coming to her parents‘ house on the day time and return to the matrimonial home in the night hours. In the year 2008, on the day of ‘Audha Poojai‘, the deceased had come to the parents‘ house and returned to the matrimonial home in the night at 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased could not be seen and she was missing. When P.W.1 enquired the first accused, he had not given any proper reply. P.W.1 went and gave complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Venganur Police Station on 12.10.2008. The complaint is Exhibit P-1. The Head Constable Loganathan on receiving the complaint Exhibit P-1, registered the case in Crime No. 113 of 2008, under the caption “Woman missing” and he prepared Exhibit P-14, First Information Report. P.W.11, Inspector of Police who received the copy of the FIR went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-15 and the rough sketch Exhibit P-16. He recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused was absconding and he has been searched.
3. P.W.1 came to know that the first accused had murdered the deceased Senthamilselvi and buried the body in the bamboo grove of one Sambasivam. P.W.1 informed the police about the incident. In the mean time, on 13.10.2008 at 7.00 a.m., the first accused/appellant went to the office of P.W.4-Village Administrative Officer and gave a statement that he murdered his wife. The first accused stated that on 8.10.2008 at about 11.00 p.m, he demanded the jewels of the deceased in order to pledge them and get money to clear the dues on purchase of Tractor. As the deceased refused, the first accused slapped on her face and strangulated her neck and thereby caused her death. He had also stated that he had buried the body of the deceased and he would identify the spade. P.W.4 recorded the statement of the first accused in Exhibit P-2 and obtained the signature. P.W.4 forwarded Exhibit P-2 along with Exhibit P-3 - letter, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Venganur police station.
4. P.W.11, Inspector of Police altered the case under Section 302 IPC and prepared FIR under Exhibit P-17. At about 9.30 a.m, he went to the office of P.W.4 - Village Administrative Officer and he arrested the accused. He also recorded the confession statement of the accused. In pursuance of the confession statement of the accused, the accused was taken and he pointed out the place where he buried the body of Senthamil Seivi. He also produced M.O.1- spade which was used to dig the pit. P.W.11 Inspector of Police gave a requisition to the Tahsildar - P.W.8 and came to the place at 2.00 p.m and the body of the deceased was exhumed in his presence at 3.00 p.m. The body was in a decomposed stage. The body was identified by P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.11, held inquest on
