Madras High Court
Senthil @ Senthil Kumar vs The State Rep. By on 29 October, 2021
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
and CRL.M.P.No.10175 of 2021
Senthil @ Senthil Kumar .. Appellant/sole accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Kinathukadavu Police Station
Coimbatore District
(Crime No.1256/2011) .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the
judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.39 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Shruthan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
JUDGMENT
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
Though what has been listed today is only the petition for suspension
of sentence and bail, since the point for consideration before us is short,
with consent, the criminal appeal itself is taken up for hearing.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.39 of 2012.
2. The prosecution story runs as under :
2.1. The appellant (accused) got married to Usha (deceased), who was
herself a divorcee and through the said wedlock with Usha, he has two sons.
2.2. The appellant was into coconut peeling work, in connection with
which, he used to carry an implement therefor, to various places and return
home.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
2.3. The appellant was living with Usha in Pudhu Colony,
Centrampalayam in Coimbatore, which is about 5 kms. away from the natal
home of Usha, which was in Amman Colony, where Ramathal (P.W.1),
mother of Usha and Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3), relatives of
Usha were also residing.
2.4. Prior to 07.11.2011, the appellant had gone on work and since he
was not available at home, Usha and her children were staying in the house
of Ramathal (P.W.1) in Amman Colony. On 07.11.2011, the appellant
returned home late and finding that Usha was not there in the house, he
went to Ramathal's (P.W.1's) house and brought her to his house.
2.5. It is alleged that, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of
Usha and used to beat her frequently, after getting drunk. Therefore,
suspecting foul play, Ramathal (P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy
(P.W.3) went in the wee hours of 08.11.2011 to the house of the appellant in
Pudhu Colony. When they went there, they saw the appellant assaulting
Usha with an iron vashi (M.O.1), which is an implement used for peeling
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
coconuts. Usha sustained injuries and when the ambulance was called, the
ambulance personnel examined her pulse and declared her dead.
2.6. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Ramathal (P.W.1),
Shanmugavel, Special Sub-Inspector of police (P.W.14), Kinathukadavu
Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1256 of 2011 under Section
302 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P13).
2.7. In the meanwhile, the appellant surrendered before Mylsamy,
Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) at 02.00 p.m. on 08.11.2011 and gave
an extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4), which was recorded by Mylsamy
(P.W.9), after which, Mylsamy (P.W.9) produced the appellant along with
the record of the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) before Ravikumar,
Inspector of Police (P.W.15), who took over the investigation of the case.
For brevity, Ravikumar, Inspector of Police (P.W.15) will be referred to as
the I.O.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
2.8. The I.O. arrested the appellant and recorded his police
confession, pursuant to which, the iron vashi (M.O.1) was seized on the
disclosure of the appellant under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P5). The I.O.
conducted inquest over the body of Usha and the inquest report was marked
as Ex.P15, after which, the body of Usha was sent to the Government
Hospital, for postmortem, where Dr.Jeya Singh (P.W.10) performed autopsy
over the body of Usha and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P6) and a
final opinion (Ex.P7), wherein, he has stated that Usha “would appear to
have died of multiple injuries, 10 to 12 hours prior to autopsy”.
2.9. After examining witnesses and collecting the various reports, the
I.O. completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.1 of
2012 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi, against the appellant for
the offence under Section 302 IPC.
2.10. 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 in S.C.No.39 of 2012 and was tried by the Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
2.11. When questioned, the appellant pleaded “not guilty”.
2.12. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and
marked 20 exhibits and 9 material objects. 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.
2.13. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.10.2012, in S.C.No.39
of 2012, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Since the date of his
conviction, he has been in the prison and this appeal was filed belatedly this
year, with a petition for condonation of delay, which was allowed by this
Court.
4. Heard Mr.B.Shruthan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent State.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
5. The case of the prosecution stands on the testimonies of Ramathal
(P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3) as well on the
extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) that was given by the appellant to
Mylsamy (P.W.9).
6. Ramathal (P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3) have,
in their evidence, stated that, the appellant had got married to Usha;
suspecting Usha's fidelity, the appellant used to quarrel with her frequently;
the appellant was a coconut peeler and also does decoration works in
marriage halls; the appellant went away from his house for work and at that
time, Usha and her children were in the house of Ramathal (P.W.1); on the
late night of 07.11.2011, the appellant came to the house of Ramathal
(P.W.1), picked up a quarrel with Usha and took her to his house; they
followed the appellant and when they went to his house, they saw him
assaulting Usha with an iron vashi (M.O.1).
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
7. In the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4), the appellant has stated
that, he went for work and returned home in the late night on 07.11.2011,
went to his mother-in-law's (P.W.1's) house and brought his wife to his
house to spend a night with her privately, but, she quarrelled with him by
suspecting his fidelity and refused courtship, on account of which, he hit her
with the iron vashi (M.O.1), due to which, she died. Thus, the extra-judicial
confession (Ex.P4) shows that, it was Usha, who suspected the fidelity of
the appellant and was quarrelling with him. Whereas, her relatives (P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3) have stated otherwise, for obvious reasons.
8. We carefully analysed the evidence available on record and we are
of the view that the appellant had not committed the murder of his wife with
premeditation. He was away from home and on return, he wanted her
companionship. But, when she quarrelled with him and refused
companionship, he is said to have hit her with the iron vashi (M.O.1),
resulting in her death. Thus, the act of the appellant would, at the most, fall
within the contours of Section 304(I) IPC and not 302 IPC. The appellant
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
has served around nine years of actual imprisonment. Therefore, he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he
is convicted of the offence under Section 304(I) IPC. As a sequel, he is
directed to be released forthwith, provided his presence is not required in
any other case. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.N.P., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
29.10.2021
gya
Issue order copy by 01.11.2021
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge
Coimbatore
2.The Inspector of Police
Kinathukadavu Police Station
Coimbatore District
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
CRL.A.No.465 of 2021
29.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
