Madras High Court
Kamaraj @ Samsa Kamaraj vs State Rep. By on 20 September, 2022
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.A.(MD)No.419 of 2019
Kamaraj @ Samsa Kamaraj .. Appellant / Sole Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thillainagar Police Station,
Trichy District.
(In Crime No.272 of 2016) * .. Respondent / Complainant
* (Amended as per order of this Court, dated
06.07.2021 in Crl.M.P(MD) No.4551 of 2021)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the judgment, dated 11.07.2019
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
made in S.C.No.146 of 2017, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and allow this Criminal
Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Anandakumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
AND
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The appellant, who was convicted for an offence under Section
302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment, has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, made in S.C.No.146
of 2017, dated 11.07.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the
deceased are husband and wife. The appellant is said to have indulged in
illegal activities and the wife took a decision to leave the matrimonial home
and accordingly, on 05.07.2016 at about 7.10 p.m., when she was about to
leave the house, she was restrained by the appellant and he proceeded to
pour kerosene on the deceased and she was set on fire. The deceased was
admitted in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli and she succumbed to
her injuries on 13.07.2016 at about 10.20 a.m.
3. When the deceased was taking treatment in the Government
Hospital, information was sent to the Police and P.W.14, who was the Sub-
Inspector of Police, went to the Government Hospital and recorded the
statement of the deceased, which was reduced into a complaint (Ex.P.9).
Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered (Ex.P.10) in Crime No.272
of 2016, for an offence under Section 307 of IPC. On the demise of the
deceased, an alteration report (Ex.P.14) was submitted before the concerned
Magistrate Court and the offence was altered to Section 302 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
4. On completion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli. After the copies were
served on the appellant, the case was committed to the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli and it was made over to the Mahila Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
5. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and M.O.1 to M.O.10 were identified and marked. The
incriminating material that was collected in the course of trial, was put to
the appellant /accused, who was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,
and the appellant denied his involvement in the crime.
6. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to
a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the
manner mentioned supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
7. Heard Mr.N.Anandakumar, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
8. We have carefully gone through the materials available on
record and considered the submissions made on either side.
9. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.10 in
order to establish the case. However, none of these witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from these witnesses, the other
witnesses whose evidence will be relevant in the present case will be the
evidence of P.W.13, who was the Doctor, who was present at the time of
recording the dying declaration and who spoke about the mental condition
of the deceased at the time of giving dying declaration. That apart, the
evidence of P.W.11 will also be relevant and this witness is the Judicial
Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.12 is
the post-mortem Doctor, who speaks about the cause of death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
10. The vital documents that has to be taken into consideration
by this Court will be Ex.P.7 - dying declaration, Ex.P.9 - complaint based on
the statement given by the deceased and Ex.P.8, which is the post-mortem
certificate.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the
evidence of the witnesses submitted that none of the eye-witnesses to the
occurrence or the neighbours or the relatives supported the case of the
prosecution and there is absolutely no ground to rope in the appellant as
accused in this case. The learned counsel has also doubted the genuineness
of the dying declaration on the ground that the deceased was tutored and she
was made to give such a dying declaration. It was further submitted that
there was absolutely no explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by
the appellant and which was also spoken to by P.W.15, who arrested the
appellant only in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli on 06.07.2016
when the appellant was taking treatment in the burns ward.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
12. As mentioned supra, the entire case of the prosecution
revolves around the dying declaration, statement recorded by P.W.14 when
the deceased was in the hospital and the law was set in motion and the
postmortem certificate issued by P.W.12.
13. The postmortem certificate which was marked as Ex.P.8,
records the following injuries:-
1) Surgical, cut down wound on inner aspect
of lower part of left leg;
2) infected, superficial, surface burn injuries
24 x 13 cm on front and middle of chest and
adjoining both the breasts; 56 x 22 cm on lower part
of chest and adjoining upper and middle part of
abdomen; 38 x 20 cm on inner aspect of front and
back of right arm, forearm and hand; 26 x 24 cm on
inner aspect and front of left arm, forearm and hand;
40 x 19 cm on front of right thigh; 30 x 15 cm on
entire left hip and left thigh; 13 x 8 cm on right
buttock; 9 x 8 cm on-left side of middle part of
back; 12 x 12 cm on right side of middle part of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
back; The floor of all the above injuries were
covered by yellowish and reddish hyperemic and
purulent material; The margins of the injuries shows
scab and signs of healing;"
14. It is also clear from the final opinion given by the Doctor
that the deceased had died due to complications of burn injuries sustained.
15. In view of the above, this Court has to ascertain the cause
of the injuries sustained by the deceased. For this purpose, the most
important material that is available before this Court is the dying declaration
which was marked as Ex.P.7. This dying declaration was recorded by
P.W.11 in the presence of Doctor P.W.13, who speaks about the mental
condition of the deceased when the dying declaration was recorded. The
Doctor has specifically stated that the patient is conscious, oriented and she
was in a sound state of mind to give the dying declaration. This opinion
rendered by the Doctor is clearly supported by the answers given by the
deceased for each question that was put to her by the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
Magistrate. The deceased has categorically stated that the appellant is
addicted to drugs and was involved in the commission of crimes and he was
released only 10 days prior to the date of incident. Immediately after
coming out from the jail, he once again started using drugs and was picking
up fights with the deceased.
16. In view of the same, the deceased wanted to leave the
matrimonial home along with her son and on seeing the same, the appellant
had poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased
came out of the house running and the neighbours attempted to dose off the
fire by pouring water on the deceased and thereafter, she was taken to the
Government Hospital. The deceased has also categorically stated that if she
dies, it is the appellant who is responsible for the same. The dying
declaration given by the deceased was also properly certified by the Judicial
Magistrate.
17. The statement recorded by P.W.14 when the deceased was
in the hospital also cogently reiterates the above facts and this statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
must also be given the same probative value, as that of the dying
declaration.
18. In the considered view of this Court, the dying declaration
of the deceased has not been discredited in this case and there is absolutely
no reason to disbelieve the same. It is now a well settled law that where the
dying declaration is found to be reliable, there is no need for corroboration
by any witness and a conviction can be sustained on its basis alone. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bapu Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (2) L.W (Crl.) 643. The very same
position was further confirmed by the Apex Court in Subhash Soni and
another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2009 (3) SCC
(Crl.) 291.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the
conviction of the appellant can be sustained on the basis of the dying
declaration alone and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the
judgment of the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
20. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and there
shall be a direction to the appellant to surrender before the trial Court within
a period of two weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take
steps to secure the appellant and confine him to jail, in order to undergo the
life imprisonment.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
20.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2019
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Tiruchirappalli
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thillainagar Police Station,
Trichy 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.419 of 2019
J. NISHA BANU, J.
AND
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
CRL.A.(MD)No.419 of 2019
20.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
