IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-12-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.671 of 2009 Nallusamy @ Padumaiselvan ..Appellant/Accused ..vs.. State of Tamilnadu, rep.by Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem. (Crime No.1017 of 2008) ..Respondent/Complainant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem, made in S.C.No.152 of 2009, dated 30.09.2009. For Appellant : Mr.S.Karthikeyan 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-I, Salem, made in S.C.No.152 of 2009, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Accused Charges Findings Sentence Accused S.457 IPC Guilty Five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, i/d to undergo five months R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accused Charges Findings Sentence Accused S.380 IPC Guilty Seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.70,000/-, i/d to undergo seven months R.I. Accused S.302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- i/d to undergo one year R.I. The sentences imposed on the 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 son and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased Santhi @ Selvamary. The deceased was the drama actress and she stopped acting before five years when her husband died. P.W.1, during the relevant time, was doing the carpentary work at Vivekananda College in Tiruchengode. Both daughters of the deceased were acting in dramas. During the relevant time, i.e.on 27.05.2008, one of the daughters of the deceased, viz., Valarmathi, went to participate in a drama at Vedasandhur while, another daughter, viz., Sathya, who was examiend as P.W.2, went to Andhiyur for acting in a drama. P.W.1 accompanied P.W.2 at the night hours of 27.05.2008, leaving the mother as the only inhabitant in the house. On the next day morning at about 7.00 AM, they returned and found the door closed. They knocked the door and they were under the impression that their mother went to buy milk. When they tried to contact her, they found that her mobile phone was switched off. Then they broke open the lock and got inside, where they found the dead body of their mother with bleeding injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. (b) On the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam, in Crime No.1017 of 2008 under section 302 IPC. Ex.P-8 is the first information report and the same was despatched to the Court. (c) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-21 and he conducted inquest on the dead body of Santhi in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-22 inquest report. A finger print expert was also called upon and he did not find any finger print available. Then, P.W.15 caused the photographs to be taken through a photographer and the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.25 series. Thereafter, a requisition was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forwarded to the Government Hospital, Salem for the conduct of autopsy on the dead body. (d) P.W.14, doctor attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body and gave the post mortem certificate, where he opined that the deceased would appear to have died 24-30 hours prior to autopsy due to the head injuries. The post mortem certificate is marked as Ex.P-20. (e) Pending investigation, on 06.06.2008, the accused was arrested 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-4 and pursuant to which, he produced M.Os.2 to 19, 23 and 24, which are the jewels, cash, petticoat and a suitcase and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-5 in the presence of witnesses. Further, the accused took the police party to a vacant site and produced M.Os.20 and 21, 'Kuthu vilakku' and 'Koduval' from the bushes nearby and they were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-6 in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the M.Os.were subjected to chemical analysis and after getting Ex.P-15 chemical analysis report and connected documents and on completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed the final report against the accused under sections 302, 457 and 380 I.P.C. (f) The case was committed to the Court of Additional District Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Salem and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 26 exhibits and 25 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 against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 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 guilty and awarded the punishments as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant/accused, the learned counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 27.05.2008/28.05.2008 at about 01.30 AM; that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that P.W.6 was examined by P.W.15; according to him, at the early hours of 28.05.2008 he found a person coming out of the house of the deceased, but he could not identify whether that person was the accused before the Court and hence, his evidence was not favourable to the prosecution case; that P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they were absent during the relevant time and they came to the house on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the next day morning at about 7.30 AM; that when they went inside the house, they found the dead body of their mother; that they immediately gave the complaint Ex.P-1, but they have not spoken about the missing of jewels or any cash and they went to the police station on the next day and informed about the missing of jewels; that had it been true that they have actually seen the dead body and the bureau was actually found broken, they would have noticed immediately and hence, it will be indicative of the fact that the alleged theft of jewels and cash is only an afterthought and the same does not belong to them; that in so far as the jewels of the deceased are concerned, they alleged to have been stolen by the accused, but P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have identified the jewels before the Court and hence the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 ought to have been disbelieved by the Court; that the jewels of the deceased were not at all stolen and a suggestion has also been made before the Investigating Officer that the jewels were belonged to the accused appellant and so long as the identity of the jewels was not proved, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act. 4. Added further the learned counsel that as per the prosecution case, the death had occurred at about 1.30 AM, but it cannot be correct or true, for the simple reason, that the post mortem doctor, who was examined as P.W.14 before the Court and also the contents of the post mortem certificate, has categorically stated that the death would have occurred 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy; that the autopsy was actually commenced at 3.15 PM on 28.05.2008; if to be so, the death should have been caused prior to 3.00 PM on 27.05.2008 and thus, all these things clearly would be indicative of the fact that the time of death, as put forth by the prosecution, was also not correct and hence, it was not the accused who has involved in the offence of murder. Added further the learned counsel that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased at Kitchipalayam, which is within the limits of the respondent police station, and the investigator would claim that the accused was found along with a suit case containing the jewels and cash; that had it been true that the accused had actually stolen the jewels on 27.05.2008/28.05.2008 night hours, there was no need for him to wait for a week till 06.06.2008; that this would clearly indicate that the alleged recovery of jewels and cash is nothing but false in order to implicate the accused with the offences. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that so far as the recovery of M.Os.20 and 21, namely 'Kuthu Vilakku' and 'Koduval' is concerned, it is alleged that they have been found in an open place, which was nothing but false and it did not help the prosecution case and all the so-called circumstances relied on by the prosecution were put together, it would show that they were not proved to indicate the culpability of the accused/appellant and hence, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of the court and the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that one Santhi, the mother of P.Ws.1 and 2 was found dead on the early morning hours of 28.06.2008 and P.W.1 has given Ex.P-1 complaint and pursuant to the case registered under section 174 Cr.P.C.for suspicious death by P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, the investigation had been taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police and after the inquest report was prepared, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.14 doctor, who has given his opinion, as a witness before the Court and through the contents of the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-20 that she died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injuries. Thus, the cause of death, as put forth by the prosecution, was never challenged before the trial court or before this Court and hence, no impediment is felt in recording that Santhi died out of homicidal violence. 8. In order to substantiate the accusations, namely, criminal trespass into the house and robbery of jewels of the deceased after causing her death, made against the appellant, the prosecution has no direct evidence to offer, but it relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence. The said principle of law if applied to the present case, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The occurrence had taken place in the midnight hours of 27.05.2008. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed that they went to the nearby place to participate in a drama and they left the deceased mother alone in the house. On the next day morning, they came back and found only the dead body of their mother. Immediately, P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.10. A reading of Ex.P-1 would clearly indicate that on seeing the dead body, immediately P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station to inform the same and pursuant to which, investigation was taken up. Even then, they have not entertained any suspicion against the appellant or mentioned the name of the appellant in the complaint. Now, it is pertinent to point out that P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed that when they were cleaning their house after the burial of their mother, they found the bureau actually kept unlocked and thereafter, they opened the same; the jewels and cash found missing; necessity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arose for them to inform; they went to the police station on the next day morning i.e.on 29.05.2008 and brought to the notice of this fact to P.W.15. This fact was not only submitted by P.Ws.1 and 2 but also by the investigator. Hence, it can be inferable that if P.Ws.1 and 2 found that the jewels were also stolen, immediately it could have been brought to the notice of P.W.15. Since they noticed only on the next day morning as to the missing of theft of jewels, it cannot be said that they came with falsity. Assuming for a moment they had actually seen both jewels and cash were missing on the date of occurrence, there could not be any impediment for them to write the said fact in Ex.P-1 complaint, but it was not so. 9. Further, in the instant case, P.W.12, who is the wife of the brother of the husband of the deceased, has been examined. She categorically deposed that on the earlier occasions, the deceased told her that she has illicit intimacy with the appellant, who visited her frequently and it should not be brought to the knowledge of the children and others and if it comes to light, her children would not get married. True, P.W.12 was examined on 12.06.2008. It must be remembered that P.W.12 is the close relative of the deceased, that too, she knew the accused very well. At this juncture, a close relative of the same family would not have come forward with such false allegation, which would also be put a stigma to the family. Under such circumstances, there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.12 could be accepted by the Court. 10. Further, the circumstance which went against the appellant/accused and which is in favour of the prosecution, is the recovery of jewels and cash M.Os.2 to 19 from the accused/appellant on 06.06.2008. P.W.15, the investigator has deposed that the accused along with a suit case was standing in a doubtful manner in a bus stand and on seeing the police personnel, he attempted to flee, but he was called and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed the offences and when the suitcase was opened, they found the jewels and cash, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-5. So far as the jewels are concerned, a comment was made by the learned counsel that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not identified the jewels before the Court and hence, they do not belong to them and the charge against the appellant in that regard has not been proved. It remains to be noted that even at the time of cross examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically stated that when they were informed about the recovery of jewels, they went to the police station and found all the jewels and cash and the accused was also present at that time and they identified the jewels and cash as M.Os.2 to 19 before the court. Under such circumstance, what was now put forth before the Court, cannot be countenanced and this was also a new plea. In this regard, not even a suggestion was made on behalf of the appellant to P.W.15 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the jewels were belonged to the accused. In the instant case, once the occurrence has taken place on 27.05.2008 midnight and the jewels of the deceased and cash were found in possession of the accused on 06.06.2008 within a short span of time, it is for the accused to explain how he came to be with the custody of the jewels and cash, which belonged to the deceased, but no explanation was forthcoming from him. Thus, it is easily inferable by way of presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act that it was he, who has stolen or who is the receiver of the stolen properties. The circumstances which were attendant when put together would clearly indicate that it was the accused who has stolen the jewels. 11. Further, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the post mortem doctor has given an opinion that the death would have occurred 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy and the autopsy has taken place at 3.15 PM on 28.05.2008 and hence, the death could have occurred before the afternoon of 27.05.2008 and as such, the case of the prosecution that the death had occurred at 1.30 AM cannot be correct. At this juncture, now the doctor's opinion as to the time of death cannot be a conclusive one and it can be taken as either 24 hours or 36 hours. Now, in the instant case, P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that on 27.05.2008 when they went to the nearby place for drama, they left their mother and at about 10.00 PM, the neighbour P.W.3 went to the house of P.W.1 and the doors found closed and when he called, it was attended by the deceased and she replied that the daughters have gone to the nearby place for drama and he could come and meet P.W.1 on the next day morning hours. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is to be noted that the deceased was alive at about 10.00 PM on 27.05.2008 and thus, all would go to show that once the direct evidence of P.W.3 is available, who met the deceased lady at about 10.00 PM, the medical opinion canvassed, cannot be given much importance. In the considered opinion of the Court, the circumstances placed would be pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offences. Hence, the trial court was perfect in recording the finding that the appellant was guilty under sections 457, 380 and 302 IPC and awarding of life imprisonment as referred to above, which, in the considered opinion of the Court, rightly too and hence, the judgment of the trial court does not require any disturbance either factually or legally in the hands of the Court. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the fine amounts and the default sentences under three charges imposed by the trial court are excessive and hence, it has got to be reduced. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences committed by him, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the trial court has ordered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the default sentences should run concurrently along with the life sentence, there is nothing to disturb the finding of the trial court. Hence, this contention also was rejected. 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.I, Salem. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem. 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR 70102 Judgment in Crl.A.No.671 of 2009 AKR (CO) RH (4.1.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/