Madras High Court
R.Ramani @ Ramani Devi vs State Rep By on 8 September, 2021
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Criminal Appeal(MD)No.295 of 2018
R.Ramani @ Ramani Devi ... Appellant/Accused(Sole)
vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Vadaseri Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.642 of 2010 ... Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated
08.03.2018 passed in S.C.No.33 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Standing Counsel on behalf of
the Government of Tamil Nadu
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
There are totally two accused. A1 was absconding at the time of
committal. Hence, the case was split up and trial was proceeded in
respect of the appellant/A2. Both the accused stood charged for the
offences under Sections 449, 341 and 302 read with 109 IPC. The trial
Court, convicted the appellant/accused, under Section 302 read with 34
IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
convicted the appellant, under Section 449 read with 34 IPC, and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant was also convicted under Section 341 read with 34 IPC
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one week. Now challenging the abovesaid conviction
and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
2.The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased by name, Helen,
is the neighbour of the appellant, she was the Panchayat overhead water
tank operator. There was a dispute between the appellant and the
deceased regarding water supply and in this regard, there was a quarrel
between them. On 01.07.2010, PW5, a relative of the deceased came in a
two wheeler and parked the same in front of the house of the deceased, at
that time, the appellant said to have poured dirty water over the two
wheeler and in this regard, again there was a quarrel between the
appellant and the deceased. Consequent to the same, on 02.07.2010, at
about 01.30 p.m., while the deceased and PW1, husband of the deceased,
were in the house, both the accused trespassed into the house of the
deceased, where this appellant/accused catch-hold of the deceased and
A1 stabbed her with knife and caused more than 10 stab injuries.
Immediately, she was taken to Asaripallam Government Medical College
Hospital, where she was declared brought dead.
3.On receipt of the intimation from the hospital, PW15, Sub
Inspector of Police, visited the hospital, where he recorded the statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
of PW1, based on his complaint(Ex.P1), he registered the FIR(Ex.P16) in
Crime No.642/2010, for the offences under Sections 449, 294(b), 341
and 302 IPC, and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate
Court and sent copies of the same to the concerned higher officials. On
receipt of the FIR, PW17, Inspector of Police, in the respondent police
station, commenced the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence,
where, he prepared the observation mahazar(Ex.P3), rough
sketch(Ex.P20) and also collected the pieces of blood stained cement
mortar(MO2) and pieces of plain cement mortar(MO3), blood stained
torn yellow colour synthetic bag(MO4) and blood stained clothes(MO6
to 9) and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. At
about 06.00 p.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body, in the
hospital, in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and sent the body
for postmortem through PW14-Head Constable, then, he recorded the
statement of other witnesses. PW10 is an Assistant Professor, working in
the Medical-Legal Department of Kanyakumari Government Medical
College Hospital, conducted postmortem autopsy of the dead body and
issued postmortem certificate(Ex.P10), stating that the deceased appears
to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
PW17 continued the investigation, arrested the appellant/accused, sent
her to judicial custody. Subsequently, on 12.07.2010, A1, surrendered
before the 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and he was produced
before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, then, he was taken to
police custody, where A1 has voluntarily given confession, in the
presence of the witnesses and based on his confession, PW17, recovered
the knife(MO1), under Ex.P3-mahazar, in the presence of witnesses,
then, he recorded the statement of witnesses and handed over the
investigation to PW18, another Inspector of Police. PW18 continued the
investigation and recorded the statement of postmortem doctor and other
witnesses and on completion of investigation, he filed final report on
05.10.2010, before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.
4.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges
as mentioned above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to
prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and
marked 24 documents, apart from 9 material objects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
5.Out of the witnesses examined, PW1, is the husband of the
deceased, he spoke about the earlier quarrel between the appellant and
the deceased, according to him, on 02.07.2010, while the deceased and
PW1 were in the house, both the accused came to his house, quarrelled
with the deceased, the appellant catch-hold of the deceased, A1 stabbed
her with knife and caused 10 injuries, immediately, he took the deceased
to Asaripallam Government Hospital, where, she was declared brought
dead. PW2 is the brother's son of PW1, he is also eye-witness to the
occurrence, according to him, on 02.07.2010, both the accused came to
the house of the deceased, A1 waylaid the deceased and stabbed her with
knife. PW3 is the sister-in-law of PW1, she spoke about the earlier
quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and also spoke about the
pouring of dirty water over the motorcycle of PW5. According to her,
both the accused went into the house of the deceased and this appellant
stabbed the deceased. PW4 is the Vice President of the Nagercoil
Municipality, he spoke about the water supply in the area. PW5, is only a
hearsay witness, he is also related to the deceased. PW6, is a witness to
the observation mahazar(Ex.P3), rough sketch(Ex.P20), and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
mahazar(Ex.P4) and also a witness to recovery of MO1 to MO3. PW7 is
a witness to the observation mahazar(Ex.P3) and mahazar(Ex.P4). PW8
and PW9, are witnesses to recovery of MO1-knife and confession of A1.
PW10, is a Doctor conducted postmortem autopsy and issued
postmortem certificate(Ex.P10), and opined that the deceased appears to
have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries and
examination of viscera has not detected any poison.
6.PW11 is the Superintendent, in the Judicial Magistrate Court, he
received the material objects and sent it for chemical examination.
PW12, is the photographer in the office of the District Superintendent of
Police, took photographs in the scene of occurrence. PW13, is the Head
Constable handed over the express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate Court
No.2, Nagercoil. PW14 is the Special Sub Inspector of Police, identified
the dead body, and handed over the same for postmortem. He collected
the clothes worn by the deceased and handed over the same to the
investigating officer. PW15, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the
intimation from the hospital, went there, and recorded the statement of
PW1, and based on that, he registered the FIR. PW16 is the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
Director in the Forensic Lab, Tirunelveli, he examined the blood stained
material objects and filed reports(Exs.P17 to P19). PW17, is the
investigating officer conducted initial investigation, arrested the accused,
recovered the material objects, recorded the statement of witnesses, and
handed over the investigation to PW18. PW18, completed the
investigation and filed final report. Since A1 was absconding, after
granting bail, the case was split up and trial was conducted in respect of
this appellant alone.
7.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused,
the accused denied the same as false and she has not examined any
witness nor marked any documents. Considering the materials available
on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as
mentioned above. Now challenging the conviction and sentence, the
appellant is before this Court.
8.Mr.C.Muthusaravanan, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that all the three eye witnesses are close relatives of the
deceased and they are interested witnesses. So far as this appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
concerned, she was convicted only with the aid of Section 34 IPC, but
the charge was framed under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. The trial
court after finding that there is no material available on record, to show
that the appellant has abetted A1, has erroneously held that the appellant
with common intention to do away the deceased, attacked the deceased,
and convicted the appellant with aid of Section 34 IPC. That apart, the
trial Court has also convicted the appellant under Section 449 read with
34 IPC, but, looking at the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, where
they have clearly stated that only A1 went inside the house, chased the
deceased, attacked her and they never spoke about the presence of this
appellant, even though there is some evidence, regarding prior quarrel
between the deceased and the appellant. According to the learned
counsel, absolutely, there is no material available on record, either to
show that both the appellant and A1 have common intention, to cause
the death of the deceased, but without considering the same, the trial
Court, convicted the appellant. Apart from that, there is no material to
show that the appellant committed the offence under Section 449 read
with 34 IPC, and hence, he would pray for setting aside the conviction
and sentence awarded by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
9.Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent would submit that there are three eye witnesses to the
occurrence, which took place inside the house of the deceased, where
PW1, PW2 and PW3, were present. All the three witnesses consistently
state that, this appellant also accompanied A1 and she only catch-hold of
the deceased, and A1 stabbed her, and caused her death. Considering the
same, the trial Court held that she has also sharing the common intention
with A1, committed the murder and the trial Court rightly considered the
evidence, and convicted her with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The
evidence of the eye witnesses are cogent, consistent, trustworthy and
there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. That apart, the FIR is also
registered within a short time of the occurrence and the copies were also
sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court, without any delay. Hence, there is
no reason to suspect any false implication, the trial Court considering
entire materials, in proper perspective, rightly convicted the accused, and
there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the
trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
10.We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials carefully.
11.Originally, the appellant was charged with the offence under
Section 302 read with 109 IPC on the ground that she has abetted A1, to
commit the murder. However, the trial Court, finding that there is no
evidence available on record, to bring home an offence under Section
109 IPC, convicted her, under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and with
Section 449 read with 34 IPC and 341 read with 34 IPC. Now, the
question that has to be decided by this Court is, whether the appellant has
shared the common intention with A1, and in furtherance of the same,
she had committed the offence.
12.The specific case of the prosecution is that earlier, there was a
quarrel between the deceased and the accused, consequent to that quarrel,
both A1 and this appellant trespassed into the house of the deceased,
where the appellant catch-hold of the deceased and A1 stabbed her with
knife. PW1, husband of the deceased, said to be present, in the scene of
occurrence. Even though in the chief examination, he has stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
both the accused trespassed into the house, this appellant catch-hold of
the deceased and A1 stabbed her, in the cross examination, he has stated
that, A1, alone trespassed into the house, and after seeing him, the
deceased ran away, towards the back door, A1 chased her, PW1 also
followed the deceased, at that time, A1 stabbed her with knife,
immediately the deceased fell down in the cot, then, A1, stabbed the
deceased indiscriminately, and he has not stated that this appellant also
accompanied A1 and she has catch-hold of the deceased while A1 was
attacking the deceased. Likewise, PW2, brother's son of PW1, also in his
cross examination, has clearly stated that, while he was watching TV,
only A1 came inside, chased the deceased, this appellant followed him
and thereafter A1 attacked the deceased. PW3, another close relative of
the deceased, according to her, this appellant attacked the deceased,
thereafter A1 attacked the deceased indiscriminately. She contradicts the
evidence of PW1 and PW2. Hence, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2,
it is seen that this appellant did not accompany A1, she has not waylaid
or catch-hold of the deceased, it is only A1, chased the deceased and
attacked her. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 449
and 341 IPC is not made out in respect of this appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
13.The next question arises is, whether the appellant has shared the
common intention with A1 and in furtherance thereof, she committed the
offence. From the perusal of the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, they
have only spoken about the earlier quarrel between the deceased and this
accused, and there is no evidence available to show that there was a pre-
arranged plan between A1 and A2, and they shared a common intention
to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof, they have committed
the offence. Merely because there is a quarrel between the deceased and
the accused, prior to the occurrence, it is not sufficient to hold that the
appellant shared a common intention with A1 and caused the death of the
deceased. The trial Court, without considering the same, has erroneously
convicted the accused. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellant, and
consequently, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
14.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the judgment, dated
08.03.2018, made in S.C.No.33 of 2015, on the file of the Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is set aside
and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any,
shall be refunded to the appellant. Bail bond executed by the appellant
shall stand cancelled.
[V.B.D.,J.] & [J.N.B.,J.]
08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1)The Inspector of Police,
Vadaseri Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.642 of 2010
2)The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
CRL.A(MD)No.295 of 2018
DATED : 08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
