IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, R.N. Manjula, JJ.
Pazhaniammal – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore – Respondent
CRL.A. No. 23 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 306 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-A and 113-B - Murder and Abetment of suicide - Dying declaration - Appeal against conviction - Deceased was married to one Ramesh and was living in her matrimonial home in village - Alleged that o a quarrel ensued between deceased and (A2) and as a sequel, deceased went inside her house, doused herself with kerosene and committed self-immolation. She was immediately rushed to Government Hospital by Ramesh, where, she was examined by Dr. (P.W.5) - Whether conviction and sentence of (A2) for offence under Section 302 IPC can be sustained.- Held, it is true that Datchayani has implicated her (A1) and (A2). She has also stated in dying declaration that this incident is known to her husband (Ramesh) and driver - Though corroboration is not always required for sustaining a dying declaration, yet, when there are other collateral evidences to dispel the veracity the dying declaration, dying declaration need not be accepted as a gospel truth. Admittedly, deceased was alive - In such view of matter, court cannot confirm conviction and sentence of (A2) for offence under Section 302 IPC - This, by itself, is not enough for mulcting criminal liability on (A2), for offence of abetment of suicide without anything more - Therefore, evidence on record is insufficient to alter the conviction to Section 306 IPC - Criminal appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.12.2018 made in S.C.No.220 of 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.)
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.220 of 2016.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. The deceased Datchayani was married to one Ramesh and was living in her matrimonial home in MGR Nagar, Panapakkam village. Her parents-in-law viz., Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) and Krishnaveni (P.W.2) were also living in the same house. Ramesh used to go for work and would return very late in the evening. Datchayani and Ramesh were childless.
2.2. Iyyanar (A1) and his wife Pazhaniammal (A2) were living in the opposite house of Datchayani in the same village. Since Datchayani was very friendly with everyone in the neighbourhood, her friendliness was misinterpreted by Pazhaniammal (A2), who suspected that Iyyanar (A1) was having an affair with Datchayani and very frequently, she used to pick up quarrels with Datchayani. On account of this, Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) took Datchayani to Puducherry, where he was employed and in the last week of July 2008, he brought Datchayani back to Panapakkam village, in connection with the local temple festivities.
2.3. It is alleged that on 31.07.2008, around 6.00 a.m., a quarrel ensued between Datchayani and Pazhaniammal (A2) and as a sequel, Datchayani went inside her house, doused herself with kerosene and committed self-immolation. She was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital, Panruti by Ramesh, where, she was examined by Dr.Nagaraj (P.W.5) at 07.20 a.m. on 31.07.2008.
2.4. In the evidence of Dr.Nagaraj (P.W.5) as well in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P3), it is stated as follows:
History of the patient : Kerosene self burn at 06.00 a.m. Today at her home. On examination, conscious.”
Since Datchayani was suffering from extensive burns, she was referred to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, for better treatment and from there, she was shifted to the JIPMER hospital, Puducherry.
2.5. At the request of the police, Mohammed Farook (P.W.7), Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, went to the JIPMER hospital at 02.30 p.m. on 01.08.2008 and recorded the dying declaration of Datchayani, which was marked as Ex.P5.
2.6. In the said dying declaration (Ex.P5), Datchayani has stated that Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2) picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter, while she was washing vessels, they came and poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. Datchayani succumbed to the injuries on 05.08.2008 at 02.30 a.m. in the JIPMER hospital.
2.7. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) to Thairiyasamy (P.W.8), Sub Inspector of Police, a case in Pudupet P.S.Crime No.228 of 2008 was registered on 05.08.2008 at 08.15 a.m. under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
2.8. Investigation of the case was taken over by Kalimullah Sha (P.W.9), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P8) and rough sketch (Ex.P9). From the place of occurrence, the I.O. (P.W.9) seized an old 5 ltr. plastic can under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P10). He conducted inquest over the body of Datchayani and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P7.
2.9. Autopsy on the body of Datchayani was performed by Dr.Mukundan (P.W.6), who in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P4), has stated as follows:
2.10. After examining some witnesses, the I.O. (P.W.9) altered the case from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC vide alteration report (Ex.P11) dated 21.08.2008. After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, including the dying declaration (Ex.P5), the I.O. (P.W.9) completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.