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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, B.PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Kasthuri - Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Police Station, Vellore District - Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.300 & 301 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6998 & 7007 of 2018
Decided on : 24.01.2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Prabakaran, Addl., Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120(b) - Sections 302 - Section 201 r/w 109 - Illegal Intimacy - Smashed Private Part - Case of prosecution is that 1st appellant Kasthuri, married deceased 20 years back and they are having four children - 2nd appellant/ was having illegal intimacy with 1st appellant - Deceased was a drunkard and quarrelled with his wife/A2 due to which, second accused/1st appellant, got aggravated and developed a grudge against deceased - She entered into a criminal conspiracy with her paramour, first accused - Pursuant to same, A1 and A2 took Somasumdaram to Sithathantham Village and administered him with some poisonous substance in liquor - When deceased refused to drink same, A1 strangulated him with cellphone charge wire and also with his hands and A2 forcibly smashed private part of her husband and caused death - To screen evidence, A2 along with A1, went to Bargur Police Station, and lodged a complaint - Based on that complaint, a case was registered as man missing – Held, Father and mother of deceased were examined by prosecution as P.W.7 & P.W.8 - They did not support case of prosecution that there was any intimacy between A1 and A2 and there was an occurrence on on account of which, offence was committed - Investigation Officer has not conducted any scientific test to fix dead body is that of deceased - Dead body was recovered and same was subjected to post mortem - According to doctor, body is of an unknown male, aged about 30-35 years - When case of prosecution is that deceased is aged about 45 years, Investigation Officer has not taken any steps to identify dead body – Court is of view that circumstances and evidence adduced by prosecution do not prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to accused persons and conviction of the appellants made on file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore is liable to be set aside and accordingly, appellants are acquitted of all charges – Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2018 is filed by the Accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2018 is filed by the Accused No.1 in Crime No.533 of 2013. The appellants in both appeals were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 302, 201 r/w 109 IPC by the respondent police and were tried before the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, in S.C.No.23 of 2015. The trial Court found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120(b) IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each. They were also found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of fine amount, three months rigorous imprisonment was also imposed. The appellants were also found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 201 r/w 109 of IPC to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of fine amount, one month rigorous imprisonment was ordered. As against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.23 of 2015, dated 26.04.2018, the above appeals have been filed.

2. Since the appeals are arising out of the same crime number, they are taken up together and disposed by way of this common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st appellant Kasthuri, married the deceased Somasundardam 20 years back and they are having four children. The 2nd appellant/Govindaraj was having illegal intimacy with the 1st appellant/ Kasthuri. The deceased was a drunkard and quarrelled with his wife/A2 on 02.12.2013 due to which, the second accused/1st appellant, got aggravated and developed a grudge against the deceased. She entered into a criminal conspiracy with her paramour, the first accused. Pursuant to the same, A1 and A2 took Somasumdaram to Sithathantham Village in Kudiyatham Taluk on 03.12.2013 and administered him with some poisonous substance in the liquor. When the deceased refused to drink the same, A1 strangulated him with cellphone charge wire and also with his hands and A2 forcibly smashed the private part of her husband and caused death. To screen the evidence, A2 along with A1, went to Bargur Police Station, on 16.12.2013 and lodged a complaint at about 07:00 p.m. Based on that complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.605 of 2013 as man missing.

4. In the meantime, a dead body was found lying on the thorny bush in S.No.81/2 of Sithanthur Village, which was noted by the Village Menial one Ashokan and on his information, the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1, visited the place of occurrence and reported the same to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kudiyatham Taluk Police Station/P.W.14 in Ex-P1. P.W.14 after registering the complaint in Cr.No.533 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch, Ex-P13 and observation mahazar, Ex-P5. He also conducted inquest on the deceased body and the inquest report was marked as Ex-P14.

5. P.W.15 took up the investigation in this case and obtained the postmortem certificate and altered the offences to Section 302 IPC. He had also arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 on 29.12.2013 at Vettuvanam Village Bus stand and recovered M.O-1, a white shirt from the thorny bush. Further investigation was conducted by PW-16, who, in turn, filed the final report as against the appellants. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined, Ex-P1 to Ex-P50 and MO-1 to MO-8 were marked.

6. The available evidence from the prosecution witnesses are as follows:

(i) P.W.1, the de facto complainant/ Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O.,) of Olakasi Village would state that on information, he visited the place of occurrence on 04.12.2013 and found the dead body of the deceased. He lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station/ P.W.14.

(ii) P.W.2 is a



































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