IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23-11-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL.A.No.154 of 2009 Sekar @ Chandrasekar .. Appellant/ Accused vs State rep. By Inspector of Police Madhukarai Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.262/07) .. Respondent / Complainant Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, dated 2.7.2008 in S.C.No.74 of 2008. For Appellant : Mr.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, whereby the appellant/accused stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment. 2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased Indirani. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1. Pursuant to the love affair, the deceased and the accused married a decade before the occurrence. Two years prior to the occurrence, since he had no work, for eking the livelihood they came to Rangasamuthiram where P.W.1 and family members were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ residing. During the relevant time, P.W.2 was living with the parents. From the time when they went over to Rangasamuthiram, the deceased was going for work and also earning. But, he suspected the fidelity of his wife since she was talking to others. He has been quarrelling with her. A panchayat was constituted in which P.W.4, the Ward Member, P.W.5, the Union Councillor, and P.W.7, the Panchayat President, participated, and it was compromised between them that she should not go to work thereafter, and it was for him to earn and maintain the family. This was continued for a short while i.e., 10 days. But, again the quarrel arose. (b) On 16.10.2007, P.W.1 as usual went for her livelihood. On that day, P.W.2 went to her grandmother's house, and she was staying there during day time. At about 1.45 P.M., P.W.2 and the grandmother heard the distressing cry from the house of the accused. Immediately, they rushed outside, and when they opened the doors, they found the deceased in a pool of blood, and the accused was standing nearby with an aruval, M.O.1, in hand, and he uttered the words "I did what I desired". Thereafter, he went eastwards along with the weapon of crime. P.W.3 who was coming in the opposite direction, found him running along with the weapon namely aruval. (c) P.W.1 got the information. Immediately, she rushed to the house and found the deceased in a pool of blood. She immediately informed to P.W.4, the Ward Member, and they arranged an ambulance by which she was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, where she was declared dead by the Doctor at about 3.00 P.M. In the meanwhile, information was given to the Out-Post Police Station attached to the Hospital. The Head Constable in turn informed to the respondent police station, where P.W.9 was the Sub Inspector of Police on duty. On receipt of the information, he proceeded to the Out-Post Police Station attached to the Hospital, got the intimation, proceeded to the hospital and obtained the report from P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of the report, Ex.P1, a case was registered in Crime No.262 of 2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court. (d) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P14. Then, he recovered the sample cement part and also the bloodstained cement part and other material objects under a cover of mahazar. He proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body at the mortuary in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P15. Thereafter, a requisition was sent to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy. (e) P.W.10, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Indirani and found the following external and corresponding internal injuries: "(1)A gapping horizontal cut wound measuring 15x5 cm – bone deep noted on upper most part of the neck, extending from 1cm below to right ear lobe, and 4cm behind to middle of left ear lobe, on dissection the wound has cut the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and ended https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ partly cutting the C2 vertebra and the underlying spinal cord. (2)A gapping horizontal cut wound measuring 10x2cmxbone deep noted on right side temporo parietal region, starting from front margin of right ear lobe and passed backwards downwards obliquely and merged with wound No: 1 in its middle. On dissection of the wound, the wound cutting the underlying earlobe muscle, nerves and vessels and partially cutting the underlying mastoid part of temporal bone. (3)A vertically oblique cut wound measuring 6x1cms – scalp deep noted on right temporo occipital region, 2cm above to wound No: 2, the upper end is 3cm above and back to right ear lobe and lower end merged with wound No: 1. (4)A transverse cut injury 4x1 cms skin deep noted on lower part of occipital region 2 cm below occipital protuberance. The right lower end merges with wound No:3. (5)A transversely oblique cut injury 6x1 cm x muscle deep noted on middle of back of neck, 1 cm below wound No: 1. (6)A transverse cut injury 8x1 cm x bone deep noted on lower part of back of neck at the level of C 5 vertebrae, 1 cm below to wound No:5. On dissection, the wound has cut the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and ended partly cutting the body of C5 vertebra. (7)A vertically oblique gapping cut wound measuring 4x1x3cm (bone deep) noted on back of right shoulder 8 cm below the acromian process, and 6 cm away from back of midline. On dissection the wound has cut the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and ended partly cutting the right scapula. (8)A transversely oblique gapping cut wound measuring 6x2 cm x bone deep noted on back of right upper forearm, 3 cm below to elbow joint. On dissection the wound cutting the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels and underlying both bones. (9)A transverse gapping cut wound 7x2cm x bone deep noted on the back of right lower forearm seen 4 cm above right wrist. On dissection the wound has cut the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and underlying both bones. (10)Right thumb found cut at its base and found hanging with a 2x1 cm tag of skin in its posterior aspect. (11)A transversely oblique gapping cut injury 8x2 cm x bone deep noted over inner aspect of left middle forearm, 14 cm below left elbow. On dissection the wound has cut the underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and underlying both bones. (12)A vertically oblique incised wound 8x1 cm, skin deep over back of left hand. (13)Contusion 15x1 cm over top of right shoulder and anterior aspect of right arm." The Doctor has given a postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by her. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 17.10.2007 at about 1.00 A.M., in the presence of P.W.6 and other witness. Then he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded. Ex.P4 is the admissible part of the confessional statement pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, aruval, and M.O.4, bloodstained shirt. The same were recovered under a cover of Ex.P5, the mahazar. Then, he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition given by the Investigator through the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P8, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P9, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 11 witnesses and 16 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 16.10.2007 at about 1.45 P.M; that two witnesses were marched to prove the occurrence; that they are P.Ws.2 and 3; that P.W.3 has turned hostile; that the evidence of P.W.2 should have been rejected by the trial Court for the simple reason that P.W.2 has candidly admitted that during the relevant time, she was living with her mother P.W.1; but, on that day, she was staying with her grandmother in her house; that there was no reason why P.W.2 must go to the grandmother's house on the day when the occurrence has taken place; that it would clearly indicate that it was only a created evidence in order to prove the prosecution case; that apart from that, it is quite unnatural that P.W.2 who, according to the prosecution, is aged 21, has not taken any steps to take the deceased immediately to the hospital; that the added circumstance was the conduct of P.W.1; that even after coming to know about the incident, she came and found the deceased in a critical condition; but, she has not taken any steps immediately to take her to the hospital; on the contrary, she was waiting for P.W.3 to come, and thereafter she went to the house of P.W.4, the Ward Member, and engaged an ambulance, and thereafter she was taken to the hospital; that the conduct of P.W.1 was thoroughly unnatural and hence it would be quite clear that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that the Court can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sustain a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness; but before acceptance, the Court must look into the corroborative piece of evidence; and that in the instant case, the prosecution had no corroborative piece of evidence at all. 5.The learned Counsel would further submit that though the prosecution has brought forth a case that he suspected the fidelity of his wife, and a panchayat was convened in which P.W.4, the Ward Member, and P.W.7, the Panchayat President, have participated, the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7 on the material particulars would clearly indicate that such a panchayat could not have taken place at all; that as far as the wordy altercation spoken to by P.W.2 is concerned, she is unable to say what was going on since she could not hear clearly and the TV was on at that time; that all would clearly indicate that the prosecution story that he suspected the fidelity of his wife and on that count, he attacked her and caused the death could not be believed; and that the prosecution has miserably failed to show by acceptable evidence that the accused was actually present at the place of occurrence at all. 6.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the recovery of M.O.1, pursuant to the alleged confessional statement is concerned, it was nothing but a cooked up affair, and they were all introduced in order to strengthen the prosecution case, but in vain; that even assuming that M.O.1 the weapon of crime, was recovered, that itself will not suffice to sustain a conviction; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that the trial Court has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8.It is not in controversy that one Indirani, the sister of P.W.1, pursuant to an incident that had taken place at about 1.45 P.M. On 16.10.2007, was immediately taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital where she was declared dead by the Doctor at about 3.00 P.M. Following the registration of the case by P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, P.W.11. After the conduct of the inquest at the mortuary and preparation of the inquest report by the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.10, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion as a witness before the Court and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by her. The fact that she died out of the said cause and due to homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or before this Court. Under the circumstances, no impediment is felt by the trial Court in recording so and rightly too. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.In order to substantiate that it was the appellant/accused who attacked her with an aruval, M.O.1, and caused her death, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely P.W.2, the daughter of P.W.1, and also P.W.3, a neighbour. It is true that P.W.3 has turned hostile, and thus the prosecution was left with the only evidence of P.W.2, the daughter of P.W.1. At this juncture, this Court is not unmindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law that in a given case where an eyewitness happened to be a related witness and only the solitary evidence is available, the Court before accepting such evidence to sustain a conviction must look into all corroborative pieces of evidence. In the instant case, it is true that P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1, and she is also related. P.W.2 has given a categorical evidence, which, in the considered opinion of the Court, is cogent, natural and acceptable. P.W.2 has claimed that on the date of occurrence, she went over to the house of the grandmother; that she was staying with her; that at about 1.45 P.M., she heard the distressing cry of the deceased; that at that time, the deceased and the accused were actually staying in the house abutting; that on hearing the distressing cry, herself and the grandmother went over there; that when they opened the doors, they found Indirani in a pool of blood; that the accused was also standing nearby with the aruval in hand; that when they got inside, they heard the utterance made by the accused "I did what I desired", and so saying he proceeded eastwards with the weapon of crime, M.O.1. Now, at this juncture, even as per the prosecution case, P.W.3 has actually found the accused moving from the place of occurrence with the weapon of crime. But, the evidence of P.W.2 stood fully corroborated from all corners in the considered opinion of the Court. 10.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that P.W.2, though she was aged 21, was not married at that time; but, the information was passed on to P.W.1 who was actually working in the field. She immediately came back and informed the same to P.W.4, the Ward Member, and by arranging an ambulance, she was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead at about 3.00 P.M. It is further to be added that this ocular testimony of P.W.2 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence, and the narration of the external injuries found on the dead body would clearly indicate that these injuries could have been caused by M.O.1, aruval, the weapon of crime. Added further, the time and cause of death also remained unshaken. 11.Yet another circumstance in favour of the prosecution was the recovery of M.O.1, aruval, and M.O.4, bloodstained shirt. The accused was arrested on the night of 16.10.2007 when he came forward to give a confessional statement, and a witness has been examined to that effect. From that, it would be quite clear that pursuant to the confessional statement, he has produced M.O.1, the weapon of crime, and M.O.4, shirt, and that would also be indicative of the nexus of the accused with the crime. All the material objects which were recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also M.O.1, the weapon of crime, and M.O.4, bloodstained shirt, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were sent for chemical analysis which resulted in the chemical analyst's report and serologist's report. A perusal of the serologist's report would clearly indicate that all the bloodstained material objects contained the same blood group, and thus the scientific evidence was also in favour of the prosecution and that would strengthen the prosecution story. 12.Now as regards the contention put forth by the appellant's Counsel that there was no panchayat, this Court is unable to agree with the same. It is true that P.Ws.4 and 7 have categorically spoken to the fact that there was a panchayat convened since he suspected the fidelity of his wife. It is further to be added that merely because there was discrepancy, their evidence need not be discarded since both have admitted that there was a panchayat convened at the instance of the spouse. According to P.W.2, she heard the wordy altercation at the time of occurrence, and since she was in the next house and the TV was also on, she could not hear in full. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.2, it could not be inferred that there was a sudden quarrel or heat of passion so as to bring down the crime of murder. In the instant case, at the time when the accused was along with the deceased, he attacked her with the aruval and caused her death and also uttered "I did what I desired". All would go to show that it was an intentional act of the accused. The trial Court was perfectly correct in finding him guilty as per the charge of murder, and no infirmity or illegality is found in the judgment of the trial Court either factually or legally. Hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be sustained. 13.In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. nsv To: 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.III Coimbatore 2. do through the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore 3.The Inspector of Police Madhukarai Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.262/07) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Director General of police Mylapore, Chennai-4 6. The District Collector Coimbatore 7. The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore 1 cc to Mr. Philip Ravindran Jesudoss, Advocate, SR. 63730 CRL.A.No.154 of 2009 NG (CO) kk 8/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/