Madras High Court
Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran vs State Represented By on 10 September, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Crl.A.(MD)No.245 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 21.08.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Crl.A(MD)No.245 of 2020
Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran ... Appellant
vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sethur Rural Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(in Cr.No.03 of 2009) ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aide the judgment and conviction dated 10.05.2016
passed by the learned Session Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Virudhunagar District Camp at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.122 of 2009 and to
acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
1/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.245 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The first accused in S.C.No.122 of 2009 aggrieved by the judgment
dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Sessions Court/Fast Tract Mahila Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, by which judgment, the appellant herein/A1
was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default,
six months simple imprisonment and convicted for offence punishable
under Section 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default two months simple
imprisonment, has filed the present appeal.
2.Before the trial Court, there were two accused, the appellant herein
Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran and his wife Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu
Irulayee. During the pendency of the trial, A2, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu
Irulee died and therefore, the charges against her stood abated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The case of the prosecution is that A1, Ramasundaram @
Ramachandran, was the elder brother of PW-1, Sriram. There were
consistent quarrels between the two families with respect to a pathway
which had to be crossed by Sriram and his family members to reach the road
and over which pathway, the accused claimed title. There was also a
difference of opinion, since the accused regularly demanded borrowal of
money from Sriram. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused
were of the impression that it was the deceased, Alagu Lakshmi, wife of
Sriram, who was an obstacle and prevented monies being lent to the
accused. It is the case of the prosecution that these were the motives for the
accused to commit the offences for which they were charged.
4.It is the further case of the prosecution that Sriram was an employee
at Rajapalayam in a courier service and on 06.01.2009 at around 04.00 pm
he received a phone message from his wife, Alagu Lakshmi that both the
accused had quarrelled with her and had threatened her. Sriram
immediately left to his residence after picking up his daughter from the
School and also his mother-in-law and his sisters-in-law. When they were
about 10 meters from his house in the evening at around 07.00 pm, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
heard his wife crying out and when they rushed, they saw A2 holding Alagu
Lakshmi and A1 cutting her indiscriminately. When they raised an alarm,
the accused threatened them and ran away from the place.
5.It is in the above circumstances that the first charge was laid against
the accused that on 06.01.2009 in the night at 07.00 pm, when Alagu
Lakshmi was standing in front of her house under the tree there, A2, Muthu
Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee caught hold of her hands and A1, Ramasundaram
@ Ramachandran cut Alagu Lakshmi on the left side of the neck, left side
head, left hand and other places on her body and she collapsed at that place
and therefore, the accused were charged for commission of offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
6.The second charge against the accused was that the accused had
threatened Sriram with an aruval that they would kill him also and therefore,
they were charged with commission of offence punishable under Section
502(ii) IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.A2, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee had died even before the
charges were framed. When the charges were read out, A1 denied the
charges. The prosecution was therefore called upon to prove the charges
beyond reasonable doubt.
8.The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-17 and marked Ex-P1 to
Ex-P28 and produced MO-1 to MO-11, material objects.
9.PW-1, Sriram was the husband of the deceased. In his evidence, he
sated that the house of the accused was to the west of his house. Both the
houses were built by their mother. On 06.01.2009, he had sent his elder
daughter to School and at 09.00 am in the morning, he went to work to
Rajapalayam. At around 04.00 pm, he received a phone call from his wife
that his brother, Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran (A1) and his brother's
wife, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee (A2) had quarrelled with her and had
threatened her and therefore, she asked him to come back home
immediately. He then picked up his daughter from the School and went
over to his mother-in-law, Poongavu (PW-2) house and along with his
wife's sister, Anusuya (PW-3) and another sister Annalakshmi (not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examined) got into a bus at Rajapalayam and got down at Krishnapuram
near his house at around 06.30 pm.
10.He further stated that when they were just about 10 meters from
his house, he heard his wife crying out that she was being attacked by her
brother-in-law and when he rushed there, he saw A2, Muthu Lakshmi @
Muthu Irulee holding the hands of his wife at the back and A1,
Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran, with an aruval cutting his wife on the left
side neck and in the head and his wife collapsed at that place itself. He
stated that even thereafter, the first accused continued to cut her. He stated
that his wife suffered 13 cut injuries. This happened at 07.00 pm. When he
rushed closer, A1 pulled out the Thaali from the deceased and ran away. He
chased him. His other two brothers, Sangili (PW-5) and Balakrishnan
(PW-4) also tried to catch A1, but A1 threatened all of them that he would
kill them and ran away.
11.PW-1 further stated that he gave a complaint to the Police Station
and identified the complaint, which was marked as Ex-P1. He also
identified the aruval, which was used by A1 and that was marked as MO-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
He also identified the dresses worn by his wife at that time. They were
marked as MO-2, MO-3 and MO-4. He also identified the dresses worn by
A1, which were marked as MO-5 and MO-6. He then identified the dresses
worn by A2, which were marked as MO-7 and MO-8. He also identified the
Thaaali of his wife, which was later recovered and that was marked as
MO-9. PW-1 further stated that to reach the road, he would have to cross
the house of the accused and there was a quarrel over usage of that pathway.
When he complained to his mother, she had told them to adjust and be at
peace. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that he came to know that
his wife had been murdered. But however, except for that stray statement,
he had withstood the cross examination.
12.The prosecution also examined Poongavu as PW-2. She had also
accompanied with PW-1 back to his house from Rajapalayam. She was the
mother of the deceased. She also stated that on 06.01.2009, in the evening
at 06.00 pm, PW-1 came to her house and informed that his brother had
quarrelled with her daughter and and therefore, asked her to come along
with him. She stated that when they went the house of PW-1, she heard her
daughter, the deceased, crying out and when she went, she saw A2 holding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the hands of the deceased and A1 cutting her indiscriminately on the neck
and head portion. She also stated that when her daughter collapsed, A1
pulled out her Thaali and ran away. During cross examination, she stated
that all of them had actually seen A1 cut the deceased.
13.The prosecution also examined Anusuya, PW-3, the sister of the
deceased, who also stated that on 06.01.2009, she had accompanied PW-1
and PW-2 to the house of PW-1 and when they were very close to the house,
she also heard the deceased crying out and she saw A1 cutting the deceased
indiscriminately while A2 was holding her hands. She also stated that A1
pulled out the Thaali and ran away. During cross examination, she stated
that she had directly seen the offence being committed.
14.The prosecution mainly relied on the above mentioned three
witnesses, who were eye witnesses, but can also be categorised as interested
witnesses.
15.The prosecution also examined Balakrishnan as PW-4, who was
the other brother of PW-1 and A1. He also stated about the dispute between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A1 and PW-1. He stated that on 06.01.2009, he and his another brother,
Sangili (PW-5), were watching the fishlings in the tank at around 07.00 pm,
when they heard a loud cry and when he turned around, he saw A1 running
with an aruval. He further stated that he and his brother Sangili and also
PW-1 tried to catch A1, but A1 threatened them with the aruval and ran
away. He further stated that he went to the house of PW-1 and saw the
deceased lying dead with cut marks on her head, right hand, thigh and neck.
The witness was not a direct eye witness, but during cross examination, he
asserted that he had seen the accused running with an aruval and that he was
threatened by the accused.
16.The prosecution also examined the other brother, Sangili, as
PW-5, but he was declared hostile, as during chief examination, he stated
that he did not know anything about the incident.
17.The prosecution further examined R.Gnanasekaran, as PW-6. He
was the Village Administrative Officer at Jameen Kollankondam Village.
He went to the scene of crime along with the Revenue Inspector at around
10.00 pm after getting information at around 09.00 pm. He saw the dead
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
body in front of the house of PW-1. He then gave information to the
jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar. He then stated that the Inspector of
Police, Sethur Rural Police Station, came to the scene of crime at around
10.30 pm. They took photographs and prepared mahazar and observation
mahazar. The witness, PW-6 and the Revenue Inspector signed as witnesses
in the observation mahazar, which was marked as Ex-P2. He was also a
witness, when the Inspector of Police collected blood stained sand (MO-10)
and sand without blood (MO-11). He also signed the seizure mahazar,
which was marked as Ex-P3. He stated that in the middle of the night at
12.30 am., they sent the body of the deceased to Rajapalayam Government
Hospital for postmortem.
18.He further stated that on 09.01.2009, when he was in his office at
10.00 am along with the Revenue Inspector, A1 appeared and gave an
extrajudicial confession statement, which he recorded. The statement
recorded by him was marked as Ex-P4. He then took the accused to the
Police Station. He further stated that in the Police Station also, the accused
gave a confession statement. The admissible portion of the confession
statement was marked during trial as Ex-P5. He further stated that pursuant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the confession, the Inspector of Police had recovered the clothes worn by
the accused under seizure mahazar, which was marked as Ex-P6. He
identified MO-5 and MO-6, which were the clothes worn by the accused at
the time of commission of the offence. He also stated that A2 had also
given a confession and the admissible portion of that confession was
marked as Ex-P7. She had produced the Thaali of the deceased which was
seized under mahazar, Ex-P9 and the Thaali was marked as MO-9. The
clothes worn by A2 were also seized under mahazar, Ex-P9. They were
blood stained. The witness identified the clothes as MO-7 and MO-8. He
was also a witness for the recovery of the aruval (MO-1) under mahazar,
Ex-P9. The witness withstood cross examination.
19.The prosecution also examined Vijaya Lakshmanan, who was the
Grade-I Police Constable at the time of the incident at Sethur Rural Police
Station, as PW-7. He had forwarded the express copy of FIR to the
jurisdictional Magistrate Court at Rajapalayam in the morning at 02.00 am
at 07.01.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.The prosecution also examined M.Alagesan, PW-8, who was a
Grade-I Police Constable in Sethur Rural Police Station. He had taken the
body of the deceased for postmortem.
21.The prosecution also examined Dr.V.Geetha, PW-9, who was a
Doctor at Government Hospital, Rajapalayam and who did the postmortem.
She identified her postmortem certificate, Ex-P12 and also the certificate
given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, as Ex-P11. In her report, Ex-
P12, she had noted down the following injuries:
“1.Round laceration with loss of skin 4.0 cm diameter
lower part of back head.
2.Horizontal cut injury upper part of back neck 4x2x2 cm.
3.Vertical cut injury from vertex to occipital on right side
of head 15x3x3 cm. Brain matter seen coming through it.
4.Vertical cut injury from vertex to occipit on left side of
head 7x3x2. Brain watter seen coming through it.
5.Cut injury left parietal area 7x3x2 cm.
6.Cut injury top of forehead 4x3x2 cm.
7.Cut injury below left mandible 4x3x3 cm.
8.Stab injury left side of neck 4x3x2 cm exposing the torn
muscles.
9.Stab injury in the centre of chest 4x3x1 cm with tailing
at lower part.
10.Cut injury right upper arm 4x3x2 cm.
11.Cut injury base of thumb left palm 4x2x1 cm.
12.Cut injury inner part of right upper thigh 8x2x1 cm.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.She also stated that the injuries could have been caused by MO-1,
Aruval. She stated that the death could have been caused about 12-18 hours
prior to the time, when she conducted postmortem. She conducted the
postmortem at around 11.00 am at 07.01.2009.
23.The prosecution also examined M.Thangarajan, as PW-10. He
was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Department, Ganapathisundaram-Krishnapuram Natchiyarpuram Circle. He
stated that on 06.01.2009, there were no electricity cut in
Ganapathisundaram-Natchiyarpuram circle. He had given a certificate
which was marked as Ex-P13.
24.The prosecution also examined M.Vairamuthu, as PW-12, who
was the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, at
Ramanathapuram and who had received Ex-P16 certificate and stated that
the blood stain in the clothes of A1 and A2 matched with the blood group of
the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25.The prosecution also examined Paul Yesudasan, as PW-13 who
was the Sub Inspector of Police, at Sethur Rural Police Station on
06.01.2009 and who had registered the FIR in Cr.No.3 of 2009 under
Sections 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. He identified the FIR, Ex-P13.
26.The prosecution also examined Rama Alagu as PW-14, who stated
that on 06.01.2009, at around 07.15 pm., he saw A1 and A2 running and
that their clothes were blood stained. He then went over to their house and
saw the dead body of the deceased. He also spoke about the quarrel over
the pathway between A1 and PW-1.
27.The prosecution also examined A.Saravanakumar, who was the
District Munsif-Judicial Magistrate-I, Srivilliputhur, as PW-15 and who had
recorded the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C of the witnesses,
Poongavu (PW-2), Anusuya (PW-3), Anna Lakshmi (not examined), Bala
Krishnan (PW-4) and Rama Alagu (PW-14). His proceedings and the
statements which he recorded were marked as Ex-P18 to Ex-P24.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28.The prosecution further examined Chandrasekaran, who was the
Inspector of Police, Sethur Rural Police Station on 06.01.2009, as PW-16
He had taken up investigation consequent to registration of FIR in Cr.No.3
of 2009 registered under Sections 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. He went to the
scene of crime on 06.01.2009 at 10.30 pm. He prepared a rough sketch (Ex-
P25) of the scene of crime and the observation mahazar (PW-27). He also
recorded the statements of Poongavu (PW-2), Anushuya (PW-3), Anna
Lakshmi (not examined), Bala Krishnan (PW-4) and Sangili (PW-5). He
also seized the blood stained sand (MO-10) and sand without blood
(MO-11) under Ex-P3. He then conducted inquest over the dead body in the
presence of the panchayatars. He then forwarded the body for postmortem
along with a requisition letter. He then recorded the statements of
Ramadoss (not examined), Gnanasekaran (PW-6), Vijaya Lakshmi (PW-7)
and Alagesan (PW-8). He marked the inquest report as Ex-P26. He marked
the letter given for chemical examination of the material objects as Ex-27.
He then took custody of the accused, who had surrendered and recorded
their confession. He identified the material objects which had been seized
and marked in Court. He also recovered the Thaali which was worn by the
deceased and taken away by A1. He also made arrangements for recording
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of the witnesses Poongavu (PW-2),
Anusuya (PW-3), Anna Lakshmi (not examined), Bala Krishnan (PW-4) and
Rama Alagu (PW14) before the District Munsif-Judicial Magistrate-I,
Srivilliputhur. He then handed over the investigation to Madheshwaran,
PW-17, Inspector of Police, since he had been transferred.
29.The prosecution also examined Madheshwaran, PW-17, who was
the in-charge Inspector of Police, Sethur Rural Police Station, who
continued with the investigation and recorded the statements of
Mahalakshmi, Forensic Science Laboratory (not examined) and
M.Vairamuthu from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Ramanathapuram (PW-12). He also recorded the statement of Arunagiri
also from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (not examined). After
completing investigation, he filed final report charging the accused with
commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 302, 506 (ii) and
404 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
30.As stated, the trial in S.C.No.122 of 2009 took place before the
Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur. During the pendency of the case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A2, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee died even before framing of the
charges.
31.The learned Sessions Judge had examined the evidence presented
in detail. It had been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the
incident was said to have happened at 07.00 pm on 06.01.2009 and the
complaint was lodged at 08.00 pm in the Police Station, but the FIR was
registered at 10.00 pm. The learned Sessions Judge had examined the
reasons and held that the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue
Inspector had come over to the scene of crime and then, the Inspector of
Police had come over to the scene of crime and since the wife of PW-1 had
died, there was a general unrest in the area and therefore, held that the delay
either in lodging the complaint or in registration of the FIR was only natural
and explainable and cannot be termed as fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The learned Sessions Judge also examined the statements of the witnesses
and stated that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had stated that they had directly seen
the offence being committed and further, observed that their statements had
also been recorded under Section 164(4) Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32.The learned Sessions Judge also examined the motive which was
presented by the prosecution, namely, the dispute over the pathway and the
regular borrowals by A1 from PW-1, which was objected by the deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge had observed that PW-1 was working in a
courier service and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and A1 was doing
cooli work and also earning Rs.6,000/-, but it was not a regular payment
received by A1 and therefore, often there were demands for borrowals by
A1 from PW-1. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the nature of
injuries matched with the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who stated
about the nature of the injuries caused on the deceased.
33.In view of the direct eye witnesses and in view of the fact that the
blood stains found in the clothes of the two accused matched with the blood
group of the deceased and also because of the recovery of the material
objects based on the confession of the accused and the conduct of the
accused in running away from the scene of crime, the learned Sessions
Judge held that the charges against A1 stood proved beyond reasonable
doubt and therefore, convicted A1 for offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10,000/- in default, six months simple imprisonment and convicted him for
offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo
six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two
months simple imprisonment. The charges against A2 stood abated.
Questioning this judgment, A1 had filed the above appeal.
34.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.K.Sudalayandi, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
35.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out the
relationship between the appellant and PW-1 and the deceased. He also
pointed out that the primary witnesses relied on by the prosecution were
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who are all directly interested witnesses. He
further stated that therefore, the Court should scrutinize their statements
very carefully. He pointed out the statements in cross examination by PW-1,
wherein, he stated that he heard about the fact of death of the deceased. The
learned Counsel stated that therefore, it is highly doubtful whether all the
three witnesses had actually witnessed the commission of the offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36.The learned Counsel also stated that it was the case of the
prosecution that owing to previous enmity, the accused had picked up a
quarrel with the deceased at around 04.00 pm and that PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3 had started from Rajapalayam with a young child at around 06.00 pm
and had reached the house at 07.00 pm. Going through the statement of
PW-1 that he came to know about the death of the deceased, the learned
Counsel asserted that the presence of the three witnesses was highly
doubtful.
37.The learned Counsel for the appellant also stated that though the
occurrence had taken place at around 07.00 pm, the complaint was lodged
only at 08.00 pm, though the Police Station is only at a distance of 1 km,
and the FIR was registered only at 10.00 pm. He further stated that the
prosecution had not properly explained the delay. The learned Counsel
therefore stated that since the presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 at the time
when the offence was committed is highly doubtful, their evidences should
be discarded by the Court and the benefit of doubt should be extended to the
accused. The learned Counsel therefore stated that the judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge should be set aside by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
38.Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent however denied and disputed the arguments of
the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor stated that the witnesses were natural witnesses. They had very
clearly stated that they had rushed back from Rajapalayam on receiving
telephonic information from the deceased at around 04.00 pm that the
accused had picked up a quarrel with her. He also pointed out that there
was electricity in the place and that the prosecution had also examined the
PW-10, Thangarasan, in that regard. He also stated that when PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3 were just 10 meters from the house, they heard the deceased
crying out that her brother-in-law was killing her. When they rushed, all of
them had consistently stated that each of them had seen A2 holding the
hands of the deceased behind her and A1 cutting her indiscriminately on the
head, neck and thigh. Later, A1 snatched the Thaali from the deceased and
ran away. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the
recovery of the blood stained clothes of both the accused and the blood
samples matched with the blood group of the deceased. He also pointed out
the injuries noted down by the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem,
Dr.V.Geetha, PW-7 and the injuries broadly matched with the injuries as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
witnessed by the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
39.He further pointed out the conduct of the accused who ran away
and threatened PW-1 and also PW-4, Balakrishnan, when they tried to catch
him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that it was only
natural that PW-5, Sangili, another brother was declared hostile in view of
his relationship with A1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated
that there was no significant delay in the lodging of the complaint,
registration of the FIR and in forwarding the FIR to the Court. It reached the
Court at 02.00 am in the morning itself. He stated that the investigation had
commenced and the Investigating Officer and the witnesses were at the
scene of crime. He also pointed out that on the confession of the accused,
material objects including the aruval had been seized and more importantly,
the Thaalli which had been snatched away from the deceased by A1 had
also been recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out
the extrajudicial confession given before the Village Administrative Officer
and in view of the evidence presented was emphatic in his assertion that the
prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the material records.
41.A1, Ramasundaram @ Ramachandran is the elder brother of
PW-1, Sriram. A2, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee is the wife of A1. The
deceased, Alagu Lakshmi is the wife of PW-1. Both A1 and PW-1 were
residing in adjacent houses. The houses had been built by their mother. But
however, to go the main road, PW-1 and his family will have to cross the
house of A1 and A2. A1 and A2 claimed title over this pathway and
quarreled with PW-1 and his family for using the pathway. This was a
continuous source for quarrel between A1 and PW-1.
42.Additionally, it is on evidence that PW-1 was working in a courier
service. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the earning of PW-1 is
Rs.6,000/- per month. A1 on the other hand was doing cooli work and
though the learned Sessions Judge had observed that he was also earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, it was also observed that the income was not regular.
It is on record that A1 often borrowed money from PW-1. This borrowal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was objected by the deceased. Therefore, A1 had a cause for enmity against
the deceased directly.
43.On 06.01.2009, PW-1 who was employed at Rajapalayam received
a phone call from his wife that A1 and A2 had picked up a quarrel with her
at 04.00 pm and had also threatened her. She called him to come to the
house immediately. The daughter of PW-1 was studying in a School at
Rajapalayam. His mother-in-law, Poongavu, PW-2 and the two sisters of his
wife, Annalakshmi and Anusuya (PW-3) were also at Rajapalayam. He
therefore, went over to the house of his mother-in-law and all of them
returned back to his house. They came there at 06.30 pm. They were
walking towards their house. When they were just about 10 meters away
from their house, they heard the deceased shouting out that her brother-in-
law was killing her. It is the consistent evidence of PW-1, Sriram, PW-2,
Poongavu and PW-3, Anusuya, that when they rushed to the house, they
specifically saw A2 holding the deceased by her hands and A1 cutting the
deceased with an arual (MO-1) on the left side of jaw, back side of the neck
and on the head of the deceased. He also cut her on the hands and on her
legs. This was at 07.00 pm. The prosecution examined PW-10,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thangarasan, Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, who
gave evidence that there was no electricity cut in that area on that time. He
had given a certificate under Ex-P13.
44.Thereafter, PW-1 tried to catch the accused. PW-1 and A1 had
two other brothers, Balakrishnan, PW-4 and Sangili, PW-5. They were also
standing nearby close to a fish tank. They heard the cries and when they
turned around, they saw the accused running with an aruval in the hands of
A1. PW-4, Balakrishnan, stated that he tried to catch the accused, but A1
threatened him with aruval that he would kill all of them. The witness
withstood cross examination. PW-5, Sangili, on the other hand was
declared hostile. But that is of no significance owing to the overwhelming
direct eye witness evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and also the evidence of
PW-4, who saw the accused running with an aruval with blood stained
clothes.
45.The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out the evidence of
PW-1 in cross examination that he heard about the death of the deceased
and then came there. We would categorically state that the said statement is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a stray statement and cannot be given any importance at all. The other two
witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3 had very clearly stated that they saw the incident
occurring. Similarly even in chief examination, PW-1 had very clearly
stated about the manner in which the deceased was murdered. Therefore, it
is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death.
46.The conduct of A1 and A2 in running away and the evidence of
PW-4 in seeing them running with blood stained clothes show that they are
the only persons, who had committed the offence. But, to further reinforce
this fact, the blood stained clothes which they were wearing had been
recovered under MO-5 and MO-6 (shirt and dhoti of A1), MO-7 and MO-8
(Saree and blouse of A2). The dresses which the deceased was wearing
were recovered as MO-2, MO-3 and MO-4. They were also blood stained.
Ex-P16 is the certificate issued by the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madurai and the copy was marked to the Assistant
Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanathapuram. The
prosecution had examined M.Vairamuthu, Assistant Director, Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanathapuram, as PW-12 and he identified
Ex-P16.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
47.A perusal of Ex-P16 shows that blood group of the deceased as
found in MO-2, MO-3 and MO-4 was O and the same blood group was
found in MO-5 and MO-6, the clothes of A1 and MO-7 and MO-8, the
clothes of A2. This cannot be a stray coincidence. The clothes worn by A1
and A2 were identified by PW-4, Balakrishanan. Later, they were recovered
during the course of investigation. That recovery had not been questioned
or disputed by the accused. The witness to the recovery, the Village
Administrative Officer, Gnanasekaran, was examined as PW-6. He also
recorded the extrajudicial confession statement of A1. He was also present
when the confession of A1 and A2 were recorded by PW-16, Chandra
Sekaran, Inspector of Police, Sethur Rural Police Station, who conducted
the investigation. The admissible portion of the confession statements were
marked as Ex-P4 and Ex-P5. The mahazars under which the blood stained
clothes, MO-4 and MO-5 of A1 were recovered, was marked as Ex-P6 and
for the blood stained clothes, MO-7 and MO-8 of A2 were recovered, was
marked as Ex-P9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
48.It is also the consistent evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that
A1 had snatched the Thaali of the deceased before running away. That
particular Thaali was seized and recovered as MO-9 under Ex-P8 mahazar.
The Village Administrative Officer, Gnanasekaran, who was examined as
PW-6 was a witness for such recovery. He withstood cross examination.
49.It is thus seen that there is a direct chain of events. The
prosecution had examined the motive. The prosecution had stated about the
phone call being made by the deceased at 04.00 pm that the accused had
quarrelled with her. Further, the evidence of PW-1 that he received the
phone call and immediately went over the house of PW-2 and PW-3 and
rushed back to his house and directly witnessed the hands of the deceased
being held by A2 and the deceased being cut indiscriminately by A1 clearly
shows that the death of the deceased was a homicide and that it was caused
only by A1 and A2. A2, Muthu Lakshmi @ Muthu Irulee died during the
course of the trial and therefore, the charges against her had abated.
50.The next conduct of A1 was the snatching of the Thaali, which
was recovered. Thereafter, both the accused ran away with blood stained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
clothes. This was witnessed by PW-4, Balakrishnan. The conduct in
threatening those who tried to catch him is also a significant factor.
51.None of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC is attracted, since there
is a motive and the nature of the injuries shows that the injuries were caused
with the knowledge that they would cause death. The injuries were caused
in the neck portion and in the head portion and even after the deceased
collapsed, she was still cut on the thighs. Thus, there was not only motive,
but there was also intention. The nature of injuries caused death and
therefore, there was knowledge that they would cause death and they were
inflicted with intention to cause the death of the deceased.
52.We find that there are no mitigating circumstances. We had
examined the 313 Cr.P.C., statement recorded from A1. He had not given
any explanation. We also examined the questioning under Section 235(2)
Cr.P.C., to find out whether he would have stated any mitigating
circumstances, but again, he had not stated any mitigating circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
53.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed very strong
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 355 (Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs State of
Maharastra) with specific reference to paragraph Nos.25, which is as
follows:
“APPRECIATION OF ORAL EVIDENCE
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for
appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially
evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence
in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
“I. While appreciating the evidence of a
witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of
the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is formed, it is
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witness and whether the earlier
evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about
the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the
appellate court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by
the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty
and formidable it would not be proper to reject the
evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is
quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here
or there from the evidence, attaching importance to
some technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going to the root of the matter would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as
between two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected
to possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice, another may
not. An object or movement might emboss its image on
one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on
the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately
recall a conversation and reproduce the very words
used by them or heard by them. They can only recall
the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic
to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the
time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make
their estimates by guess work on the spur of the
moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or reliable
estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the
time-sense of individuals which varies from person to
person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to
recall accurately the sequence of events which take
place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A
witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable
to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the
piercing cross examination by counsel and out of
nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding
sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination
on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of
the witness sometimes so operates on account of the
fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly
inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be
sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the
former statement has the potency to discredit the later
statement, even if the later statement is at variance
with the former to some extent it would not be helpful
to contradict that witness.”
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : ((1983) 3 SCC 217 : AIR
1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9
SCC 525 : AIR 1999 SC 3717 and Tahsildar
Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
54.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that there is always a
possibility of discrepancies arising. In this case, PW-1, during cross
examination stated a stray statement that he heard about the death of the
deceased. That stray statement cannot be taken into consideration. In chief
examination, he had very clearly stated about the manner in which the
offence took place and the places at which the injuries were caused and the
fact of Thaali being snatched and later, him being threatened by the accused.
55.We therefore hold that the prosecution had examined witnesses,
who spoke witnessing directly about the offence being committed, who
spoke about the subsequent conduct of the accused in running away with
blood stained clothes with aruval and who spoke about recovery of blood
stained clothes and aruval and the Thaali which was snatched from the
deceased and who spoke about the matching of the blood group found in the
blood stained clothes with the blood of the deceased.
56.The prosecution had also adduced evidence about the motive and
about the immediate quarrel which happened at 04.00 pm and the
commission of offence at 07.00 pm. If the quarrel had not been intense,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
then the deceased would not have called upon PW-1 to rush back.
Therefore, that particular quarrel at 04.00 pm was an intense quarrel and
there was a direct threat held out against the deceased, which was carried
out at 07.00 pm.
57.We would therefore uphold the conviction and sentence against
the accused. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
58.The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and
commit him to the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The
period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
[C.V.K., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
10.09.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Session Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Virudhunagar District Camp at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sethur Rural Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD. J.
cmr
Judgment made in
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
