Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Muthupandi – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Madurai – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD). No. 336 of 2019
Decided on : 01-09-2022
Extra-Judicial Confession - Criminal Appeal - 302 and 201 I.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, Kanaga, based on the prosecution's evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and the discovery of the victim's body. The appellant's wife had confronted him about his intimacy with another woman and subsequently went missing. Her body was discovered based on the appellant's showing of the burial site.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the appellant guilty of the murder based on the prosecution's evidence, including the extra-judicial confession and the discovery of the victim's body. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment and order.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the murder, and whether the prosecution's evidence, including the extra-judicial confession and the discovery of the victim's body, was sufficient to establish his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the appellant's extra-judicial confession, the discovery of the victim's body based on the appellant's showing, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the appellant regarding the burial site to establish his guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment and order convicting the appellant for the murder of his wife was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, in S.C.No.239 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.)
1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, in S.C.No.239 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai,
2. The Trial Court framed two charges against Muthupandi (A1) and Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), as detailed below:
Charge Penal Provisions Accused
1 302 and 201 I.P.C. Muthupandi (A1)
2 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2)
3. By judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, the Trial Court acquitted Thangaselvi (A2) of the charge under Section 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced Muthupandi (A1), as detailed below:-
Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount
302 I.P. C. To undergo imprisonment for life Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months.
201 I.P.C. To undergo one (1) year rigorous imprisonment. Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month.
4. The prosecution case runs thus:
4.1 Raniammal (P.W.1) is a physically challenged lady with two daughters, Kanaga (deceased) and Karthiga (not examined). Her husband deserted her several years ago and so, as a single parent, she brought up her two daughters. She was residing in Ayyankovilpatti Village in Madurai District, with her two daughters and was a daily wager.
4.2 A few years ago, the appellant and Kanaga, who were in love with each other eloped, got married and worked in Ajantha brick kiln of Mohanraj (P.W.3) in Panayur Village. Kanaga was blessed with two daughters and a son.
4.3 While their family was in Panayur, the appellant developed intimacy with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), which was resented by Kanaga. When the appellant started living with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), Kanaga, along with her children, returned to her natal home in Ayyankovilpatti and she and her children were living with Raniammal (P.W.1).
4.4 Five days prior to lodging of the police complaint by Raniammal (P.W. 1), Kanaga left Ayyankovilpatti village saying that she is going to Panayur village to question her husband about his activities. Since Kanaga did not return for five days, her mother Raniammal (P.W.1) started looking over for her along with her brother Muniappan (P.W.4).
4.5 They came to Ajantha brick kiln and enquired Mohanraj (P.W.3), who told her that on 04.02.2012, he had seen Kanaga quarrelling with her husband and so, he shouted at them and thereafter, he does not know anything about Kanaga.
4.6 Narrating all these facts, Raniammal (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the police on 05.02.2012, in which, she and her brother Muniappan (P.W.4) have signed, based on which, Neethiraj (P.W.9), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Avaniyapuram Police Station Crime No.65 of 2012 at 21:00 hours and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P11).
4.7 While the police were in search of Kanaga, on 06.02.2012, around 11.00 in the morning, the appellant surrendered before Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6), Village Administrative Officer of Panayur Village and gave a confession statement (Ex.P4) stating inter alia that after his first wife left him, he got married to Kanaga and thereafter, he married Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2); Kanaga and her children were living with his parents; on 04.02.2012, around 11.30 p.m., Kanaga came to his house in Panayur and quarrelled with him saying that she wants a decision this way or the other in the matter; as she was shouting, neighbours came to intervene and tried to pacify her, but in vain; after they left, around 2.30 a.m., Kanaga moved off his house with his third child; he followed her and snatched the child from her; Kanaga resisted; thinking that if Kanaga is left like that, she would spoil his peace, he strongly punched her on her throat, due to which, she fell down on the ground with the child; when he
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
