Madras High Court
Suresh vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 October, 2022
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated 26.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl. A. (MD)No.176 of 2020
Suresh .. Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Sivakasi Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No. 33 of 2015) .. Respondent/Complainant
Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2019 in S.C.No.109 of 2015 on
the file of the Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Srivilliputhur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Sulthan Basha for
Ms.A.Banumathy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 12.12.2019 made in S.C.No.109 of 2015 on the file of the
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, convicting and
sentencing the appellant in the following manner:
Provisions under Sentence Fine amount
which convicted
302 IPC To undergo Rs.10,000/-, in
imprisonment for life default, to undergo
simple imprisonment
for one year
201 IPC To undergo rigorous Rs.5,000/-, in default
imprisonment for five to undergo six
years months simple
imprisonment
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the
accused and they were married for nearly nine years and they had two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
children. The accused seems to have developed a suspicion against his wife
and used to indulge in wordy quarrel against her and was forcing her to stop
going for work. That apart, the accused was not going for any work and he
was a drunkard and hence, the family was taken care by the deceased.
2.1. The further case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2015, at about
2.00 p.m., the deceased is said to have refused to give proper food for the
accused person and there was a wordy quarrel and the accused started
attacking the deceased by strangulating her and by slapping her in her
cheek. The deceased fainted and fearing consequence, the accused person
strangulated the deceased with the Thali chain and he also consumed
poison.
2.2. Both the accused and the deceased were taken to a private
hospital by P.W.4. P.W.9 treated both of them and the accident registers were
marked through the said Doctor as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. It is clear from Ex.P6
that the deceased died on 17.01.2015 at about 9.15 p.m., and the accused
was also treated for consumption of poison and he was discharged on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
19.01.2015 at about 2.30 p.m.
3. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, went to the hospital and
the deceased is said to have informed him about the entire incident. P.W.1
gave a complaint [Ex.P-1] and an FIR [Ex.P10] was registered by P.W.12 in
Crime No.33/2015 at about 10.00 p.m., on 17.01.2015.
4. The investigation was taken over by P.W.15 and the final report
was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi. The copies were served
on the accused person under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was
committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Virudhunagar. The case was made over to the Court below. The
Court below framed charges against the accused person for offences under
Section 498(A), 302 and 201 IPC.
5. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15, marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13 and identified and marked M.O.1 to M.O.4. The incriminating
materials that were gathered in the course of trial were put to the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
person and he was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and he
denied the same as false.
6. The Court below, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has made out a case beyond reasonable
doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner
stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been
filed before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
8. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence and the following circumstances were relied upon:
● The death was caused by homicide, which has been spoken to by
P.W.1 and P.W.14-Doctor through whom the postmortem report
Ex.P.11 was marked;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
● the presence of the accused along with the deceased in the house,
where the occurrence had taken place, has been spoken to by P.W.3,
P.W.4 and P.W.8;
● Recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 spoken by P.W.7 through whom Ex.P4
and Ex.P5 were marked;
● Motive to the crime spoken by P.W.3 and P.W.8; and
● The non explanation of the accused with respect to what actually
happened inside the house, which was exclusively within his
knowledge and the adverse inference to be drawn under Section 106
of the Evidence Act.
9. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, speaks about the
relationship between the deceased and the accused and the cruelty meted out
by the accused regularly. This witness also speaks about the statement made
by the deceased to him, wherein she has described the entire incident to
P.W.1. In the course of cross-examination, no questions have been put to
this witness so as to discredit him with regard to the oral dying declaration
said to have been given by the deceased. This witness had only set the law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
in motion by giving a complaint on 17.01.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. and even
in the complaint, he has given the complete details on the statement that was
made to him by the deceased in the hospital.
10. P.W.3, who is the neighbour, has spoken about the regular fights
that used to take place between the accused and the deceased and of the fact
that on the date of incident, she also heard the deceased shouting from her
house and she along with P.W.8 entering into the house, found both the
deceased and the accused lying in the floor.
11. P.W.8, who is the landlord, has also spoken on similar lines like
that of P.W.3. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of these two witnesses
that there was a motive behind the crime and that the accused was very
much present inside the house at the time of incident.
12. The accused and the deceased were taken to a private hospital by
P.W.4 and the Doctor, who gave the first treatment, was examined as P.W.9
and the accident registers were marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. This Doctor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
speaks about the fact that the deceased was unconscious and they found a
mark in her neck. This Doctor also speaks about the treatment that was
given to the accused, who had consumed poison.
13. P.W.14 was the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem and
the postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P11. The following injuries
were recorded in the postmortem certificate:
“Injury marks: 1.ligature mark present in anterior
aspect of neck extending from upper right margin of thyroid
cartilage to upper left margin of thyroid cartilage measuring
3.5 c.m., length x 0.5 cm breadth.
2.Contusion below thyroid cartilage 3 cm x 3 cm;
3.Contusion over the chin 7 cm x 5 cms ;
4.Nail mark present in right side of mandible aspect of
jaw.
On opening Thorax: no rib fracture, lungs congested;
Heart – filled with blood, hyoid – intact. On opening
abdomen: stomach contains 300 ml of black colour semisolid
substances. Liver, both kidneys, pancreas, spleen, intestines –
congested, uterus – empty; on opening skull : no skull
fracture, brain and membranes – congested.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
14. The final opinion given by P.W.14 is that the deceased appeared to
have died of Asphyxia due to strangulation. Hence the prosecution has
clearly established that homicide was the reason for the demise of the
deceased.
15. The next important evidence that is to be taken into consideration
is the evidence of the scientific analyst, who was examined as P.W.11,
through whom Ex.P9 was marked. It is clear from the evidence of this
witness that no poison was detected from the deceased and M.O.4 contained
organo phosphorus insecticide. This was consumed only by the accused and
it was not given to the deceased as was attempted to be projected by the
accused person in order to conceal the offence committed by him.
16. The evidence of P.W.7, who was a witness for arrest and recovery,
clearly shows that based on the admissible portion marked as Ex.P4, M.O.1
to M.O.3 were recovered under Ex.P15. Accordingly, the recovery has also
been established by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
17. The presence of the accused in the house has been spoken by
P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 and the accused person has not given any
explanation as to what exactly happened inside the house. The accused was
attempting to project the case as if both the accused as well as the deceased
consumed poison and ultimately the medical evidence shows that the
deceased died due to strangulation and the accused had consumed poison to
mislead regarding the demise of the deceased. The incident that took place
inside the house is within the said knowledge of the accused and since he
has not given any explanation, adverse inference must be drawn against the
accused person under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused person
not offering any explanation becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete. Useful reference can be made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran reported
in 1999 (8) SCC 679 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam reported in
2013 (7) SCC 417.
18. In a case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be
fully proved and the circumstances must form a chain of evidence so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
19. In the present case, the prosecution has proved every
circumstance and the last link in the chain of circumstance is the non
explanation of the appellant as to what really happened inside the house and
this link complete the chain.
20. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below has properly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has come to a correct
conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case beyond reasonable
doubts. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
judgment and order passed by the Court below and the conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellant deserve to be sustained.
In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
26.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sivakasi Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.176 of 2020
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
RR
Judgment made in
Crl. A. (MD)No.176 of 2020
26.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
