Madras High Court
Murugesan vs The State Rep. By on 18 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2021
Murugesan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(in Cr.No.122 of 2012) ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment
in S.C.No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai, dated 27.08.2019 and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
1/16
Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment in
S.C.No.67 of 2013 dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Sivagangai, by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in default, to
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.67 of
2013. It is a case of murder of wife by the husband.
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant herein had
estranged relationship with his wife Bharadha Devi. On 03.08.2012,
took her in his two wheeler under the pretext of going to temple, but took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
her to an isolated place and stabbed her repeatedly causing her death. It
is the further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the scream of
Bharadha Devi, P.W.2 rushed to the place and saw Bharadha Devi in pool
of blood with several injuries. When he enquired her, she told him that
she and her husband came in a two wheeler to go for a temple, her
husband stabbed her and ran away. At that time, another person of his
village called Ramasamy came and they both called 108 ambulance and
send the injured persons to Sivagangai Government Hospital.
4. On intimation, the Village Administrative Officer went to
the spot and after ascertaining the occurrence given a complaint to the
Respondent Police at about 4.30 p.m. His complaint is marked as Ex.P.1
and informant examined as P.W.1.
5. The owner of the house in which the deceased was
residing with her children examined by the prosecution as P.W.12 and she
has deposed that Bharadha Devi came as a tenant three (3) months prior
to the occurrence and day before the occurrence her husband came and
stayed with her along with the children. On 03.08.2012, after sending
the children to the School, they both left the house in a two wheeler
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
informing her that they are going to temple. Thereafter, she came to
know that Bharadha Devi was stabbed to death. The postmortem Doctor
had deposed that Bharadha Devi had sustained multiple lacerated injuries
and opined that should have died due to injury of vital organ.
6. Based on the materials placed, the Sessions Court framed
charge under Section 302 IPC and tried the accused.
7. In the whole, the prosecution case based on 13 witnesses,
12 exhibits and 8 material objects were found to be sufficient to prove
the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC
and therefore, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous
imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is
challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the trial Court erred in holding the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 as
wholly reliable. The contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 go to show that they are not at all witness to the occurrence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
particularly, they had deposed that after calling 108 ambulance, they sent
the injured person in the ambulance to the Government Hospital,
Sivagangai, but did not accompany the injured. The fate of the injured
person not spoken by them. P.W.3 in his evidence claims that he saw the
assailant running and sought the help of the cattle grazers to catch him.
However, P.W.2 had not whispered about the presence of the assailant.
9. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that the
informant examined as P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer.
According to him, he received the information at about 1.30 p.m., on that
day, however, he had gone to the Police Station and given the complaint
Ex.P.1 only at 16.30 hours. He has not explained the reason for delay.
Admittedly, when he went to the spot, the injured person was not in the
spot. The content of the information converted into FIR belatedly does
not reflect the true occurrence. The evidence of P.W.4 Jeevarathinam, the
father of the deceased and P.W.5 Pandi, the brother-in-law of the
deceased also not been properly considered by the trial Court. They both
had deposed that the deceased and the accused were not living together
and one of the child was with the accused. This evidence by the close
relatives of the deceased is contrary to the evidence of P.W.12 the house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
owner, who claims that on the date of occurrence both the children along
with deceased and the accused were staying in her house and after
leaving the children at the School, the husband and wife left in the
two- wheeler for the temple.
10. The learned counsel would also submit that the evidence
of P.W.6 is of no assistance to the prosecution case since he has neither
identified the accused nor the deceased except to say that near the scene
of occurrence, he saw two persons going inside the kanmoi after parking
the two wheeler.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant primarily
submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to explain the fate of
Bharadha Devi who sustained injury and sent in an ambulance to the
Hospital by producing the Accident Register copy or the evidence to
show how the body of Bharadha Devi reached the mortuary of
Sivagangai Government Hospital and when it reach the Hospital.
12. The learned counsel referring the opinion of the
postmortem Doctor that Bharadha Devi might have died six hours prior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
to postmortem and the postmortem was conducted on 04.08.2012 at
about 12.15 p.m., the probable time of death should have been at 6 a.m.,
on 04.08.2012. The prosecution case is that Bharadha Devi was
repeatedly stabbed by her husband/accused on 03.08.2012 around
1.30 p.m. The opinion of the postmortem Doctor and the failure of the
prosecution to produce the Accident Register copy and evidence of 108
ambulance driver goes to the route of the prosecution case to disbelieve
their evidence.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the relationship between the accused and the deceased is not disputed.
The deceased residing separately as a tenant in the house of P.W.12 also
proved through the evidence of P.W.12 as well as evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.5. The testimony of P.W.12 that she saw the deceased and the
accused leaving the house at about 10.30 a.m., in the two wheeler not
being impeached by the accused through cross examination. To
corroborate her evidence that the deceased and accused went in the
two-wheeler is substantially supported by evidence of P.W.6., who is
passer-buyer saw a couple in the two-wheeler near the scene of
occurrence. Though in isolation evidence of P.W.6 may not be so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
relevant the fact that the deceased found badly injured in that place by
P.W.2 and P.W.3 has to be considered conjointly.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submitted that P.W.2 had seen the deceased alive with serious injuries, he
heard from the injured person that she was stabbed by her husband. She
had also disclosed her name and identity of her husband. This being
reflected in the complaint given by P.W.1 fairly admitting that the
prosecution had failed to place evidence regarding the ambulance and the
time of admitting the injured person in the Hospital. He would submit
that the inquest report was marked as Ex.P.10 provides the answer for the
doubt raised by the appellant.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the inquest report conducted at Sivagangai Government Hospital in the
presence of panchayadhars proved that the body of Bharadha Devi had
reached the Hospital prior to 7.30 p.m., on 03.08.2012. The postmortem
was conducted on the next day i.e., on 04.08.2012 at about 12.15 p.m.
Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
testimony of the postmortem Doctor that the death occurred six hours
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
prior to postmortem is being said inadvertently instead of six hours prior
to admitting the body and receiving the body in postmortem.
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
17. The case of the prosecution heavily relied upon the
evidence of P.W.2 who is the first person to see Bharadha Devi with
several injuries over her body and alive. He had deposed that the injured
person disclosed her name as Bharadha Devi, she came along with her
husband in a two wheeler, her husband stabbed her and went. She had
pleaded to save her children. At the same time, P.W.3 Ramasamy has
also come along that way and they both had called 108 ambulance and
send the injured person to Sivagangai Government Hospital. They have
also informed Poovanthi Police Station and Village Administrative
Officer.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that these two witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are politician, they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
obligation to the Police to support them and hence, their evidence should
not be believed. Such a general statement against the Members of Local
body is unfair. Being a former Village Panchayat President, P.W.2 had
acted as a good samaritan try to help the injured lady on hearing her cry.
He had mounted the witness box, narrated what he saw and heard. He
had subjected himself for cross examination. However, in the cross
examination his credential has not been impeached even as inch. No
doubt there is a long time gap between the incident which alleged to have
happened between 1.00 and 1.30 p.m., and the complaint which was
registered at about 4.30 p.m. This gap has no impact on the credential of
the prosecution case, when evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly show
that Bharadha Devi was found badly injured and send to the hospital in
108 ambulance.
19. The only point to be proved by the prosecution is who
cause the injury which has led to the death of Bharadha Devi.
20. For that, this Court is of the view that the evidence of
P.W.2 itself sufficient being res gestae evidence. The scream of the
deceased heard by P.W.2 and he also heard regarding the person who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
cause the injury, this coupled with evidence of P.W.10, the postmortem
Doctor who had opined that the death of Bharadha Devi was due to
injury in her vital organ prove the case of the prosecution beyond any
reasonable doubt that the appellant is the person who has caused the
injuries leading to the death.
21. The other circumstantial evidence like the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.6 adds further credential to the prosecution case minor
deviation or the lapse of prosecution not producing the accident register
and details of the ambulance does not hit the route of the case.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay
Singh @ Vijah Kr. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 2623 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the
following observation regarding the opinion of the postmortem submitted
that the evidence of the postmortem Doctor that the death could have
occurred six hours prior to postmortem is very important, since the
prosecution has failed to explain about the whereabouts of Bharadha
Devi either alive or dead between 1.30 p.m., the alleged time at which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
P.W.2 and P.W.3 saw her alive, till 7.30 p.m., when the inquest
commenced at Sivagangai Government Hospital. In this regard, the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh @ Vijah
Kr.Sharma's case cited supra need to be considered. Paragraph No.30
reads as follows :
“30. The appellants have also raised certain
objections with respect to the time of death. The
discrepancy has been flagged in light of the
post mortem report, based on the post-mortem
conducted at around 5:30 PM on 31.08.1985, which
indicates that death took place around 24 hours ago. It
indicates that the time of death must have been around
5:00 PM on 30.08.1985, which is contrary to the
evidence of PW18 that the incident took place around
10:00 PM on 30.08.1985. A post mortem report is
generally not considered as conclusive evidence of the
facts mentioned in the re-port regarding the cause of
death,time of death etc. It could always be
corroborated with other direct evidence on record such
as ocular evidence of the eye witnesses. However, when
there is no other credible evidence on record to
contradict the report, the facts stated in the
post mortem report are generally taken as true. In the
present matter, the evidence of the eye witnesses has
been declared as wholly unreliable including on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
aspect of time of death. Thus, there is no reason to
doubt the post mortem report and the findings therein.”
23. In this regard the sequence of event as found from the
prosecution evidence would go to show that the occurrence happened
around 1.00 p.m., on 03.08.2012. Bharadha Devi was found alive with
injuries by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and she was sent to hospital in 108
ambulance at around 1.30 p.m. P.W.1-Village Administrative Officer had
reached the spot on receiving the information after 1.30 p.m. and he has
informed the Police at about 4.30 p.m. In his complaint itself P.W.1 had
stated that he came to know that Bharadha Devi succumbed to injury.
Therefore, the death of Bharadha Devi find place in the complaint as
well as the FIR which has been registered at about 16.30 hours. The
body seen by the panchayadhars at Sivagangai Government Hospital at
about 19.30 hours during the inquest. Undoubtedly, there is a lapse in
the case of the prosecution by not producing the relevant documents
regarding the movement of injured person from the spot to the Hospital.
However, whether the said lapse will enure any benefit of doubt to the
appellant, if considered this Court finds that this lapse has no bearing in
arriving at the decision regarding the guilt of the appellant, because
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.6
to some extent to be read conjointly and the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5
go to show that the appellant who had married the deceased got
separated from her. Only on the day prior to the occurrence went to her
place enticed her to accompany him to the temple, took her to an isolated
place and stabbed her to death. Being a clear case of preplanned murder,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.
Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court stands
confirmed.
24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and
the judgment passed in S.C.No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, dated 27.08.2019 is hereby confirmed. The
accused shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith, failing which, he
may be secured and committed to prison to undergo the remaining period
of sentence.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
18.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai,
2.The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
18.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 02:36:41 pm )
