IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07-12-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.467 of 2009 Rajkumar ..Appellant ..vs.. State rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Trivellore District. (Crime No.317 of 2007) ..Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Ponneri, made in S.C.No.129 of 2008, dated 23.06.2009. For Appellant : Mr.J.I.Rajkumar Roberts For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, A.P.P., JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional District Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-IV, Ponneri, made in S.C.No.129 of 2008, whereby the appellant shown as A-1 along with three others shown as A-2 to A-4, stood charged and tried under the following provisions of law. On trial, the appellant/A-1 was found guilty while A-2 to A-4 were acquitted of all the charges, as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accused Charges Findings Sentence A-1 to A-4 S.498(A) IPC A-1 guilty A-2 to A-4 not guilty Two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to undergo three months R.I. A-1 and A-2 S.120(B) IPC Not guilty -- A-1 S.302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo six months R.I. A-2 S.302 r/w.109 IPC Not Guilty -- A-1 S.201 IPC Guilty Five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to undergo six months R.I. The sentences imposed on the appellant/first accused were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Lakshmi. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the sisters of the deceased. A-1 is the husband of the deceased. A-3 and A-4 are the parents of the 1st accused. Prior to the marriage, the appellant/A-1 married A-2. The marriage between the deceased and the appellant took place on 25.06.2007. At the time of marriage, the jewels and the 'seer varisai' articles were given to the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 were informed by the deceased that he was demanding 20 sovereigns of gold and also cash of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 could not meet the same. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 15.07.2007, P.Ws.1 to 3 were informed that Lakshmi died in her house. Immediately, they rushed to the place of the deceased, where they found the dead body of the deceased Lakshmi unattended. They enquired the persons standing nearby, who informed P.Ws.1 to 3 that she died due to either snake bite or due to falling from the stairs. But P.Ws.1 to 3 found injuries on the dead body. (b) On entertaining suspicion, P.W.1 went to the respondent police station, Gummidipoondi and gave Ex.P-1 complaint and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.11, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Sub-Inspector of Police, in Crime No.317 of 2007 under section 174(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P-19 is the first information report. The original of the same was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the copy was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gummidipoondi. (c) The R.D.O., P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P-19 proceeded to the spot, conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of the witnesses and also conducted the inquest on the dead body of Lakshmi and he prepared Ex.P-20 inquest report. Thereafter, a requisition was forwarded to the Government Hospital, Ponneri, for the conduct of autopsy on the dead body. (d) P.W.9 doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, gave the post mortem certificate, where she opined that the deceased would appear to have died 48 hours prior to autopsy due to the head injury. The post mortem certificate is marked as Ex.P-17. (e) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.13 took up the investigation. He went to the spot and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-23 and also rough sketches Exs.P-21 and 22 and examined the witnesses. He recovered M.O.1 sari under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-25 in the presence of witnesses. On receipt of the post mortem certificate Ex.P-17, the case was converted into one under sections 498-A, 306 and 304(B) IPC and the amended FIR is Ex.P-26 and the copy of the same was sent to the Court. He examined P.W.9 and recorded her statement. (f) Pending investigation, A-1 was arrested on 20.07.2007 and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part is marked as Ex.P-28, pursuant to which, he produced M.Os.2 to 5, which are the letters and a cell phone and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-27 in the presence of witnesses. A-2 was arrested and she gave a confessional statement and following that, M.O.6 mobile phone was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-29. The other accused were also arrested and they were sent for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed the final report against the accused under sections 498-A, 120(B), 201, 302 and 302 read with 109 I.P.C. (g) The case was committed to the Court of Additional District Sessions Division, Ponneri and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also relied on 29 exhibits and 6 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Apart from denying the evidence as false, they have also filed a written submission, where they averred that the deceased committed suicide and caused the death by herself. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials. On doing so, the trial Judge took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt and found the appellant/A-1 guilty and awarded the punishments referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. The trial court has acquitted the other accused in respect of all the charges levelled against them. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-1, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence had taken place on 15.07.2007 at about 2.00 PM; that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that P.W.1 is the mother and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the sisters of the deceased and only after getting information, they came to the place of occurrence and thus, they were not competent to speak how the death was caused; but all the witnesses had spoken to the effect that from the time of marriage, they were living happily; that at the time when the occurrence had taken place, A-1 was actually in a nearby house of P.W.4 witnessing a T.V.programme; that when the brother of A-1 arrived the house, he found the doors locked inside and on seeing through the window, he saw that the body was hanging from a fan and he immediately informed A-1 and P.W.4, who also came over there; but since the door was locked inside it was broken by them and a message was sent to P.W.1 and others; that before P.W.12 R.D.O.who made his first enquiry on 16.07.2007, P.Ws.1 to 3 had categorically stated that she committed suicide, whereas in their additional statements which were recorded on 20th July, 2007, they have stated contrary to the earlier statements and that the information was not only inconsistent but false information as if it was a case of causing death by the accused; that the R.D.O. has clearly recorded his finding that there was no dowry demand and hence, the trial court should have acquitted the appellant of all the charges. 4. Added further the learned counsel that the defence plea before the trial court was that it was a case of suicide and the evidence of the doctor would clearly be indicative of the said fact as, at the time of cross examination the medical person, who conducted post mortem, had categorically admitted that there were all possibilities of the death being caused by suicide and that the commission of suicide could not be ruled out and that the injuries found on her head and back of the neck were possible by the deceased coming into contact with a table or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ chair; that at the time when the investigator came to the spot, the photographs were taken but they were not produced before the trial court; that on the contrary, all the photographs and C.D. were produced by the accused before the trial court; that had the photographs been filed, it would have spoken to the fact that it was only the commission of suicide and in order to suppress the same, the photographs were not filed and apart from that, a suicide note was left by the deceased and the same was handed over to P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police and he has also admitted that it was written by her; but that was not produced before the trial court and had it been produced, it would clearly have indicated the act committed by her; that there was no explanation for non-production of the suicide note written by her and hence, the prosecution tried to suppress the true facts before the trial court and thus, a presumption could be drawn against the prosecution but the trial Court did not do so and that on the contrary, the trial court has taken an erroneous view as if it was a case of homicidal death. Added further that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence and all the evidence should have been placed before the trial court; that the evidence available before the trial court would be indicative of the fact of suicidal death; that it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled for acquittal; that having acquitted the other accused on the same evidence, the trial court should have acquitted the appellant also and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not in controversy that one dead body of Lakshmi, wife of A-1 and the daughter of P.W.1, was found in the residence and pursuant to the case registered under section 174 Cr.P.C.for suspicious death by P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, the investigation had been taken up by P.W.13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the inquest was conducted by P.W.12, Revenue Divisional Officer and following the inquest made, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.9 doctor, who has given her opinion, as a witness before the Court and through the contents of the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-17 that she died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. What was contended before the trial court and before this Court by the appellant/A-1 is that it was the deceased, who had committed suicide and the death was caused by herself and it was not due to the homicidal violence. Hence, the only question that was placed before the trial court and equally before this Court is, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whether the death of Lakshmi was due to homicidal violence as put forth by the prosecution or due to the suicide as put forth by the defence. The circumstance which has attendant prior to the incident and also the conduct of the accused are noteworthy to mention. 7. The occurrence had taken place within the short span of time, namely, 20 days, from the date of marriage. According to P.W.1, at the time of marriage, sufficient jewels and 'seer varisai' were given. It is also pertinent to point out that already A-1 had married A-2. When he came forward to marry the deceased, a question was raised by the family members of P.W.1 about the first marriage and he answered that there was a divorce and therefore, he was free from that marriage. Reposing confidence on his words, the deceased was given in marriage to the appellant; but within 20 days from the date of marriage, the occurrence took place. The earlier marriage between A-1 and A-2 was an admitted fact. Though the appellant pleaded that he divorced his first wife, there was nothing to indicate the same before the trial court except his assertion. The occurrence had taken place at about 2.00 PM. It is not the case of the appellant that he was away from the place of occurrence during the time of occurrence. According to him, at the time when the occurrence had taken place, he was actually staying and living with the deceased in the said house and he was in the house of P.W.4 and when he was informed about the death, he immediately rushed to his house and since the door was kept locked inside, it was broken open and the dead body was seen. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that even according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 2.00 PM and the oral complaint was given to P.W.11 at about 5.00 PM with an interval of three hours. In this regard, the appellant has not taken any steps. Added further it was P.W.1, who went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered, but no steps were taken by the accused/appellant even after noticing the dead body. Now the question that would arise, as pointed out earlier, is, whether Lakshmi had committed suicide or it was a case of homicidal death. At this juncture, a perusal of the post mortem certificate Ex.P-17 in this regard would be more relevant. In Ex.P-17, the external injuries were found as follows: "A bloated female body lying on the P.M.table; face swollen; eyes closed; mouth closed; tongue in position; fluid blood oozing from the nostrils. A ligature mark present over the neck on right side about 6 cm.length x 2 cm breadth. Veins all over the body, face, chest, abdomen black in colour. A contusion of right side head on temporal area 4 x 3 cm present. No other external https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injuries. Internal Examination: Head and neck: Scalp intact. On opening the scalp, there was blood clotted in the temporal region on right side. Linear fracture about 1.5 cm length, present in right temporal hone. On opening the skull, Brain liquified. Neck: Hyoid bone intact. Anatomical structural in the neck intact. No blood clots. Thorax: Rib cage and sternum intact. Lungs and Heart congested. Abdomen: Stomach contains undigested food particles. Small intestine empty. Liver, Spleen and kidney congested. Uterus: Normal in size and shape. P.W.9 doctor has also given her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. Now, a very reading of this particular part of the above would clearly indicate that there was a ligature mark present over the neck on the right side about 6 cm. length and 2 cm. breadth and further, hyoid bone was found intact. In order to find out whether it could be one of hanging or homicidal death, the following factors could be taken into consideration according to the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi (23rd Edition). The differences between hanging and strangulation with reference to the ligature mark, as found in Serial No.7 at page 584 of that Edition read as follows: Hanging Strangulation 7. Ligature mark – Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment like. Ligature mark – Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 8. When it is a case of suicide by hanging, as per the Medical Jurisprudence, the ligature mark should be incomplete, oblique and interrupted. In the instant case, the ligature mark was found on the right side of the neck and of 6 cm. length and 2 cm. breadth and apart from that, there were no other external https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injuries. It remains to be stated that the hyoid bone was intact. Anatomical structural in the neck was intact and no blood clots were actually found. Further, the doctor has also pointed out that there could not have been a suicide by hanging. Added further positively on external examination, the injuries were found on the head and on opening the skull, there was a blood clot in the temporal region on right side and linear fracture about 1.5 cm length was present in the right temporal bone. The doctor has given her categorical opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. 9. So far as the head injury is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to explain that the deceased being a lady was trying to commit suicide by hanging from a fan and in such an attempt, there is all possibility of the body dashing against the nearby cement wall when the body was hanging and thereby the injuries could have been caused. The Court is of the considered opinion, in a given case, that where there is an attempt to commit suicide, there is no possibility of any injury on the body by moving like a pendulum or dashing against the wall and hence, that contention in respect of such injuries on the body of deceased cannot be acceptable and thus, in the instant case, applying the Medical Jurisprudence, the present situation would clearly indicate that the contention that it is a case of suicide by hanging has to be ruled out and by abundant evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the death has been caused due to homicidal violence. 10. Now the comments made by the learned counsel for the appellant that though photographs were taken, they were not produced before the trial court; but on the contrary, the photographs were produced by the defence, by itself cannot be the reason to cast a doubt on the prosecution case. Much comment was made on the non-production of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased. It is pertinent to point out that it is true that at the time when P.W.11 went over there, a document was handed over to P.W.11 calling it as a suicide note. Now the question is whether it was written by the deceased or whether it can be called a suicide note. But, in this regard, not even a suggestion was made on behalf of the appellant to P.W.11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would state that P.W.11 wanted to call the same as suicide note, it cannot be stated so without enquiry as to whether it was actually written by the deceased lady. Under such circumstances, one would naturally expect to call the document as a suicide note. Hence, the comment on this aspect is also not acceptable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. According to the appellant/accused, he was actually witnessing TV programme in a nearby house and P.W.4 informed him about the occurrence and then, he rushed to the place and found the dead body of his wife hanging and the document, namely, suicide note found available. In such circumstances, there was no impediment for him to immediately rush to the police to inform about the occurrence and the document. He has not even informed anybody but sent a message to others and all these things would clearly indicate that the non-production of the said document cannot in any way affect the prosecution case since there is nothing to indicate that it was a letter written by the deceased lady, and the defence cannot rely upon such document to attack the case of prosecution. 12. The learned counsel would further contend that there was no motive for the accused to do so. What was the motive for an offence is actually subjective in character. No doubt, the crime is a heinous one and not to be compared with others. The Court has to find out whether such an occurrence had taken place and whether the death was due to homicidal violence or commission of suicide by herself. In the case on hand, the evidence would clearly indicate that it was the homicidal violence, and under such circumstances, the act could not have been done yet by anyone except by the appellant. Hence, the trial court was perfectly correct in recording the finding that the appellant was guilty under sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC and awarding life imprisonment and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gl To 1. The Additional District Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.-do- Through the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvellore. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Trivellore District. 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66. 6.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri. 7.-do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivellore. 8.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court,Madras. 9.The District Collector, Tiruvellore. +1cc to Mr.J.I.Rajkumar Roberts, Advocate Sr 66964 AKR(CO) km/19.12. Crl.A.No.467 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/