IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1083 of 2007 Aradadi Ramudu @ Aggiramudu .. Appellant/Single Accused Vs. The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Yanam Police Station, Pondicherry (Crime No.57/1997) .. Respondent/Complainant This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry made in S.C.No.99 of 1997 dated 29.4.1999. For Appellant : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry J U D G M E N T (The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Pondicherry made in S.C.No.99 of 1997 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) The deceased Gangammal was the wife of the accused/appellant. P.Ws.3 and 4 were the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased. The accused, though married and had two children, he never cared to maintain the family and he was carrying a wayward life. He used to consume liquor every day and quarrelled with his wife and tortured her. On 13.8.1997 at about 6.45 hours, he went home after 4 days and quarrelled with her in drunken mood. He suspected her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fidelity and tried to strangulate her. She tried to ward off the same but she could not bear the pain. The accused brought a small knife and cut her on the neck. On hearing the distress cry, P.W.2 neighbour rushed and found the victim with grievous injuries. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence. (b) P.W.2 took the deceased in a rickshaw belonged to P.W.5 to the Government Hospital, Yanam and P.W.1, a Senior Medical Officer who was on duty gave initial treatment to her to whom the victim has stated that she was attacked by her husband and thus sustained injuries. He sent intimation to Yanam Police Station through Ex.P1. Since the condition of the victim was found to be serious, the doctor gave intimation to the Government Hospital, Kakkinada which was marked as Ex.P2. (c) P.W.19 the Police Officer of the respondent Police Station, Yanam, on receipt of the information rushed to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the victim which was marked as Ex.P30. On the strength of Ex.P30, a case came to be registered in Crime No.27 of 1997 under section 307 I.P.C. The F.I.R., Ex.P31 was dispatched to court. On the same day, the accused was arrested. He gave confessional statement which was recorded and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.23. Following the same, the accused produced M.O.1 knife which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. (d) The victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Kakkinada, at 14.10 hours on 13.8.1997. P.W.12 Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Kakinada admitted the victim and gave treatment to the injuries sustained by her. Despite performance of operation and treatment, the victim died on the same day. The death intimation was given to the Police . The case which was registered under section 307 I.P.C. was altered to section 302 IPC. (e) P.W.20, the Inspection of Police, took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P20 in the presence of witnesses and drew a rough sketch Ex.P21. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Photographs were taken which were marked as Exs.P6,7,8 & 9 series through P.W.9. Further, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.3. (f) Following the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.13, doctor attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries: 1. Scratch abrasion 0.5 cm in length on front of neck on right side 4 cm above clavicle 6 cm right to mid line. Red in colour. 2. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.8 cm on front of neck on left side 2 cm above the inner end of left clavicle, parallel to it. Red in colour. The margins are clean cut. 3. Sutured wound with 10 cotton sutures measuring https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11 cm in length across from of neck 9 cm above sternal notch and 9 cm below the chin. On removing the sutures 11 x 3 x 0.3 cm incised wound is seen. The margins are clean cut. Blood clots are seen in the wound. 4. Sutured wound 5 cm in length with 3 cotton sutures vertical position. 3 cm above the inner end of left clavicle and 1 cm left to mid line and 0.3 cm below the injury No.3. On opening the sutures 5 x 1.5 x 9.5 cm stab wound is seen. It is directed downwards back ward & to left. It passed through the skin, platysma; muscles of neck & pierced the Apex of left lung where it measured 0.5 x 0.2 x 0.3 cm. Left plaural cavity contained 2300 cc of blood and blood clots. The stab wound is spindle shaped. Both ends are pointed. Margine clean cut. Gel foam present in the base of wound. 5. Abrasion 2.5 x 1.5 cm on the front of right knee over lower end of patella. Reddish brown in colour. 6. Abrasion 6 x 2 cm on the inner aspect right leg 15 cm below knee. Reddish brown in colour. The above injuries are antemortem in nature." Apart from that, he also issued the post mortem certificate,Ex.P25 wherein he has opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of stab injuries sustained on the neck. (g) All the material objects which were recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and also recovered from the accused following the confessional statement were subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in Ex.P35, chemical report and Ex.P.36, serologist report. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (h) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 36 exhibits and 9 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied them as false. No defence were examined. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instant of the appellant. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge of murder, has examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased. When their evidence are looked into, it is seen that there are lot of discrepancies, apart from that, they are children. Added further learned counsel, in the instant case, P.W.2 who was neighbour has reached the place of occurrence, after the occurrence was over. So far as the judgment of the trial Court is concerned, the prosecution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rests its case much on the statement given by the deceased to P.W.1, doctor and also Ex.P30 , the statement given by the deceased to P.W.19 Sub Inspector of Police of Yanam Police Station. Insofar as Ex.P1 is concerned, it speaks only about the assault that was made by her husband/accused. So far as Ex.P30 is concerned, there was lot of discrepancies found. Hence, these two documents cannot be given much weight at all. Added further learned counsel, the medical opinion canvassed was inconsistent with that of Ex.P30, the statement recorded from the victim by the police. The alleged confessional statement and the recovery of weapon of crime-knife from the accused, were nothing but fabricated and it would not strengthen the case of the prosecution at no stretch of imagination. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case but the trial court has taken an erroneous view and found the accused guilty of murder. 4. As the second line of arguments, the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, even assuming the prosecution has proved its case that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased on the neck, the act of the accused will not fall under the provision of murder. P.W.1 has categorically submitted that the injuries are superfluous and those injuries did not touch the vital part, namely connected vessels and trachea. Therefore, it was not the intention of the accused to murder the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have spoken about the quarrel between their mother and father prior to the date of occurrence and due to sustained provocation, the accused had acted so. Under such circumstances, this factual position has got to be considered by this Court. 5. The Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry, on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not in controversy that the wife of the accused, following the incident that had taken place at about 7.00 a.m. on 13.8.1997 was taken to the Government Hospital, Yanam and she was given treatment by P.W.1 and thereafter, she was taken to Government Hospital, Kakinada, where she was given treatment by P.W.12, doctor and despite treatment and conduct of operation, she succumbed to the injuries. The cause of death as putforth by the prosecution was spoken to before the Court by the post mortem doctor, P.W.13 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he has also given opinion through the post mortem certificate, Ex.P25. The cause of death that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of stab injury on the neck as putforth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the trial court or before this Court. Hence, there is no impediment for this Court in recording so. 7. In order to substantiate that it was the accused who caused the stab injuries on the deceased, the prosecution had to its advantage P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are the children of the deceased and the accused. They have spoken to the fact that it was the accused who stabbed her on the neck with the knife. P.W.2 was the neighbour who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has categorically deposed that immediately after hearing the distress cry of the victim, she rushed to the deceased house and she was informed by the deceased that it was her husband who stabbed her. Further, she took her immediately to the Government Hospital, Yanam in the rickshaw of P.W.5. P.W.1, doctor who gave treatment to the victim has categorically stated that the victim has stated to him that she was assaulted by her husband with a knife and it has been recorded in Ex.P1 document. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Kakinada. There, P.W.12 doctor gave her treatment. On intimation P.W.19, Sub-Inspector of Police, Yanam reached the Government Hospital to whom the deceased has categorically given statement which was recorded in Ex.P.30. Now, the Court is able to see that the statement given by the deceased and recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police would clearly reveal that it was the accused who actually stabbed her due to which she sustained injuries. 8. Further, in the instant case, yet another circumstances noticed by the Court is the recovery of the weapon of crime pursuant to the confessional statement given by the accused/appellant. The witnesses have also been examined to speak to that effect. The evidence of the children, the statement of the deceased given to P.W.1 doctor as found in Ex.P1, the statement given by the deceased to the Sub Inspector of Police as found in Ex.P30 and the recovery of the weapon of crime, all would indicate that it was the accused who had caused such injuries on the deceased. After sustaining injuries, she was taken to the Hospital at Yanam and thereafter to Kakinada and despite treatment, she died. Thus, it would clearly reveal, as a direct consequence of the injuries sustained by her which was caused by the accused, she died and the same is proved by necessary evidence. 9. As far as the second line of argument is concerned, the Court is unable to agree with the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place in the morning hours. From the materials available, it would indicate that the accused used to consume liquor everyday and he never maintained his family and it was the deceased who eked her livelihood and was also maintaining her children. Apart from the above, the accused was also suspecting her fidelity. On the date of occurrence, it was he who took a knife and stabbed her on her neck and there is nothing found that there was any quarrel preceding the occurrence. In the instant case, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries which were noticed in the post mortem certificate Ex.P.25 and stated by the medical person would show that those injuries did not touch the vital part, namely connected vessels and trachea or windpipe, cannot be a reason to bring down the act of the accused. It was the accused who had stabbed the deceased on the neck and the injuries which were actually noticed in the post mortem certificate were all found in the neck and it was due to direct consequences of those injuries, the deceased died, which would indicate that the accused had knowledge that by causing such injuries on the neck in the ordinary course would sufficiently cause death. Under such circumstances, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had no intention to cause death, cannot be accepted. In the absence of any provocation or quarrel, he has caused injuries on the deceased unnecessarily and as a direct consequence, she died. The trial Court has marshalled the evidence proper and has come to a correct conclusion that it was the accused who has committed murder of his wife. This Court is unable to find any factual or legal position to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vsi To 1. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry 2. Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. 3.The District Collector, Pondicherry. 4.The Director General of Police, Egmore, Chennai. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundhry, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Inspector of Police, Yanam Police Station, Pondicherry 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 8.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court,Madras. +1cc to Mr.V.Parthiban, Advocate Sr 59266 PUR(CO) km/23.11. CRL. APPEAL No.1083 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/