Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU AND V. BHARATHIDASAN, JJ.
Silambarasi - Appellant
Vs.
State by The Inspector of Police, Tittacheri Police Station - Respondent
CRL. A. No. 101/2015
Decided On : 15-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Sankarasubbu
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor
The court emphasized the importance of corroborating witness testimony and the need for evidence to be in line with medical findings in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Motive - Murder - IPC 302, IPC 201 - Summary: The court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC due to lack of corroboration of evidence and doubts regarding the presence of the key witness. The medical evidence was not in line with the witness testimony, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of her husband, based on the prosecution's claim that she killed him by dashing his head against a wall and then hanged the body to mislead the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the key witness to be doubtful due to a significant delay in making the complaint and lack of corroboration from independent sources. The medical evidence did not support the witness testimony, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Issues: Presence of key witness, Corroboration of evidence, Medical evidence
Ratio Decidendi: Doubt regarding witness credibility and lack of corroboration from independent sources led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 1 of 2014 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. She stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. By judgment dated 07.01.2015, the trial court convicted her under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial court, however, acquitted her from the charge under Section 201 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The deceased in this case was one Tamilvanan. The accused is his wife. They have got two children born out of the said wedlock. The accused and the deceased, along with their children, were residing at Ganapathipuram Village in Nagapattinam District. The accused was a drunkard and he used to harass the accused both physically and sexually while in drunken state. Because of this, there arose misunderstanding between them. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. Out of the said motive, it is stated that the accused decided to kill her husband.
(b) Accordingly, on 09.10.2013 at 11.00 p.m., in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the accused held the head of the deceased and dashed the same against a wall repeatedly. The accused fainted and died instantaneously. In order to erase the evidence and to misdirect the police, according to the prosecution, the accused hanged the dead body by using a sari.
(c) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She was residing at Melaperunattan Thoppu Village. According to her, on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 had gone to the house of the deceased where she witnessed the entire occurrence. On a complaint made by her, P.W.11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No.348 of 2013 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to court.
(d) P.W.12 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 08.00 a.m. and 09.00 a.m. on 11.10.2013.
(e) P.W.9 Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 11.10.2013 at 12.30 0.m. He found the following injuries:
''External Injuries:
1. Contusion seen over occipital region.
2. Depressed fracture of skull seen over right frontal region.
Eyelids closed. No fluid from ear. Tongue placed with the mouth.
Teeth intact. Hyoid Bone intact.
Internal Examination :
No rib fracture. Abdomen uniform. Liver - 1500 gms liquid c/s. congested. Spleen 120 gms c/s.congested.
Stomach and its contents : About 500 ml. of food particles present.
Intestine filled with gas. Bladder - empty. Skull - Depressed fracture over right frontal region.
Brain 400 gms. c/s. congested. Hemorrhage seen over right frontal region.''
Ex.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to the injury to vital organ.
(f) P.W.12 continued the investigation, arrested the accused and forwarded her to court for judicial remand and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 14 documents and 1 material object were also marked.
4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the mother of the deceased has stated that the accused dashed the head of the deceased against the wall and as a result of the same, the deceased died. P.W.2 has stated that when she went to the house of the decease
