Madras High Court
Manoharan vs State Represented By on 19 August, 2021
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
Manoharan
S/o.Pichamuthu .. Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Valappady Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.230 of 2015) .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the
judgment and order dated 19.09.2017 passed in S.C.No.223 of 2015 on the
file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 19.09.2017 passed in S.C.No.223 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions
Court, Mahila Court, Salem and to set aside the same.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1 The appellant got married to Shanthi (deceased in this case)
about twenty five years prior to the day of occurrence (03.04.2015) and was
blessed with a daughter Dhavamani and two sons viz., Manivannan (PW14)
and Periyasamy (not examined). The appellant and his family were living in
Chinnamanaickenpalayam in Salem District. About two years prior to the
incident, Dhavamani was given in marriage to someone, but, she committed
suicide, on account of which, the family was in great distress.
2.2 It is alleged that the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife
Shanthi and picked up quarrel with her very frequently. About six months
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
prior to 03.04.2015, a quarrel ensued between the appellant and Shanthi, on
account of which, Shanthi left for her natal home with her two sons in
Kolathukombai, which is around four or five kilometres from
Chinnamanaickenpalayam. The appellant went to the residence of Rayar
(PW1), brother of Shanthi, in Kolathukombai and brought back his wife and
children after mediation two days prior to the day of occurrence.
2.3 On 03.04.2015, from 4.00 p.m. onwards, the appellant and
Shanthi were quarrelling in their matrimonial house in
Chinnamanaickenpalayam, which news reached Rayar (PW1) and Raji
(PW2), a distant relative, in Kolathukombai and therefore, they both came to
Chinnamanaickenpalayam around 8.30 p.m. While Rayar (PW1) and Raji
(PW2) were entering into the house of the appellant, they saw the appellant
quarrelling with his wife Shanthi and thereafter, the appellant took a
billhook (M.O.4) and hacked his wife to death. Thereafter, the appellant
took his two children with him in the motorcycle and left the house.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
2.4 On a written complaint (Ex-P1) given by Rayar (PW1),
Marimuthu (PW11), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Valappady
Police Station Crime No.230 of 2015 for the offence under Section 302 IPC
at 23.00 hours on 03.04.2015 against the appellant and prepared the printed
FIR (Ex-P11), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 04.04.2015 at
10.00 a.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.5 Investigation of the case was taken over by Umashankar
(PW15), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and
prepared the observation mahazar (Ex-P2) and rough sketch (Ex-P14).
2.6 From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer
recovered the following items under the cover of a seizure mahazar (Ex-P3)
in the presence of witnesses Mahalingam (PW4) and Rajasekaran (not
examined):
i. Bloodstained cement chips ... M.O.2
ii. Unstained cement chips ... M.O.3
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
2.7 The appellant was arrested on 04.04.2015 at 11.45 a.m. and on
his confession, Yamaha Crux Bike (M.O.1) was seized under the cover of a
seizure mahazar (Ex-P5) in the presence of witnsses Gopinath (PW5),
Village Administrative Officer (for brevity “ the V.A.O.) and Ramar (not
examined).
2.8 That apart, on the disclosure of the appellant, the Investigating
Officer seized the billhook (M.O.4) and bloodstained white shirt (M.O.5)
under the cover of a mahazar (Ex-P6) in the presence of witnesses Gopinath
(PW5), V.A.O. and Ramar (not examined).
2.9 The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the body of
Shanthi and marked the inquest report (Ex-P15) and thereafter, the body of
Shanthi was sent to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
College Hospital (for brevity “GMKMC”), Salem, for postmortem, where,
Dr.Sangeetha (PW6) performed autopsy and issued the postmortem
certificate (Ex-P8).
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
2.10 Samples of the visceral organs were sent to the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. After obtaining the
viscera report (Ex-P9), which did not disclose the presence of any poison in
the visceral organs, Dr.Sangeetha (PW6) gave her final opinion (Ex-P10),
wherein, she has stated as follows:
“Final Opinion: The deceased would appear to
have died due to multiple injuries.”
2.11 The seized articles were sent through the jurisdictional
Magistrate to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for biological and
serological examination, where, Bhavani (PW13), Scientific Officer,
examined the same and issued serological report (Ex-P13), wherein, human
blood group “A” was found in the bloodstained cement chips (M.O.2) and in
the apparel of Shanthi (M.Os.6,7 & 8), which were handed over to the police
after postmortem. Though human blood was found in the billhook (M.O.4)
and bloodstained white shirt (M.O.5), the grouping test showed that the
result was inconclusive.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
2.12 After examining witnesses and collecting the various reports,
the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report
in P.R.C.No.8 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, for the
offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC against the appellant.
2.13 On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of
Session, Salem, in S.C. No.223 of 2015 and was made over to the Sessions
Court, Mahila Court, Salem, for trial.
2.14 The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and
201 IPC against the appellant and when questioned, he pleaded “not guilty”.
The charge under Section 201 IPC was framed on the premise that the
appellant had hidden the billhook (M.O.4) and bloodstained white shirt
(M.O.5).
2.15 To prove the prosecution case, the police examined fifteen
witnesses and marked twenty three exhibits and eight materials objects.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
2.16 When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the
same. From the side of the appellant, no witness was examined nor any
document marked.
2.17 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 19.09.2017 in S.C.No.223
of 2015, convicted and sentenced the appellant as follows:
Provision under
S.No. Sentence
which convicted
Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
1 Section 498-A IPC Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months
simple imprisonment.
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
2 Section 302 IPC default to undergo six months simple
imprisonment.
Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Section 201 r/w
3 Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months
302 IPC
simple imprisonment.
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2.18 Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the appellant
has preferred the present appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
3. Heard Mr.B.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent/State.
4. The prosecution case rests on the testimonies of Rayar (PW1),
Raji (PW2) and Manivannan (PW14).
5. Rayar (PW1), in his evidence, has stated that he is the brother
of Shanthi; Shanthi was married to the appellant about twenty five years
prior to the incident; they were blessed with three children viz., Dhavamani,
Manivannan (PW14) and Periyasamy; Dhavamani was married to a person,
after which, there was a problem in her matrimonial home, on account of
which, she committed suicide; thereafter, the appellant was living with his
wife Shanthi and two sons in Chinnamanaickenpalayam; the appellant used
to suspect the fidelity of his wife and quarrel with her; six months prior to
the incident, he picked up a quarrel with her and sent her to his (PW1's)
house; two days prior to the incident, the appellant came to his house and
promised to take good care of Shanthi and his two children; based on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
assurance given by the appellant, he (PW1) sent Shanthi with him to
Chinnamanaickenpalayam; on 03.04.2015, around 4.00 p.m., he received
information that there was a quarrel going on between the appellant and his
sister Shanthi and so, he (PW1) along with Raji (PW2) went around 8.30
p.m. to the appellant's house in Chinnamanaickenpalayam; at that time, the
appellant was quarrelling with his wife Shanthi and took out a bill hook
(M.O.4) and hacked her; thereafter, the appellant took his two children with
him in his motorcycle and left the place; thereafter, he (PW1) went to the
police station and lodged a written complaint (Ex-P1).
6. The testimonies of Raji (PW2) and Manivannan (PW14) also,
by and large, corroborate that of Rayar (PW1).
7. However, we are unable to find any material for sustaining the
conviction of the appellant under Section 201 IPC, inasmuch as Manivannan
(PW14), in his evidence, has stated that the billhook (M.O.4) was lying in
the house itself near the body of his mother Shanthi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
8. From the evidence, it appears that the couple was quarrelling
from 4.00 p.m. onwards and the climax reached around 8.30 p.m. when the
appellant is alleged to have attacked his wife with the billhook (M.O.4),
which normally peasants like the appellant have in their house. That apart,
Manivannan (PW14), in his evidence, has clearly stated that his father
(appellant) was mentally disturbed at that time.
9. On a conspectus of the evidence on record, we find that there
was no calculated premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the
murder of his wife Shanthi for attracting Section 302 IPC, especially, in the
light of the aforesaid evidence of Manivannan (PW14), who had witnessed
the incident.
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the proved
facts disclose the commission of an offence under Section 304-I IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
11. In the result:
a) this criminal appeal is partly allowed;
b) the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC stands confirmed;
c) the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 201 IPC;
d) the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC, but,
convicted of the offence under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to
undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment;
e) it is not necessary for the appellant to pay fine, if he had already paid
the same before the trial Court; and
f) the sentences shall run concurrently.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
19.08.2021
nsd
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Salem.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Valappady Police Station,
Salem District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
nsd
Crl.A.No.523 of 2018
19.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
