IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 25.03.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2007 Kuppusami ... Appellant/Accused vs. State, by Inspector of Police, Omalur. ... respondent/Complainant (Crime NO.1047/2002) Appeal against the Judgment dated 15.12.2003 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C.No.206 of 2003. For Appellant : Mr.V.Sairam For respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor. J U D G M E N T (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.206 of 2003 appeals before this Court against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. 2.The allegation in the charge is that on 27.6.2002 at about 2.00 a.m. in his house, the accused, in view of the illicit relationship developed by his wife Perumayee – deceased, with one Subramani, with an intention to cause her death, took an axe, decapitated her head and thus, caused her instantaneous death and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 3.Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that, (a)P.Ws.1 and 2 are sons and P.W.4 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased Perumayee. There used to be quarrels between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ spouses. It is alleged that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with one Subramani and prior to the occurrence, the deceased was alleged to have gone to the house of said Subramani and stayed there for one month. Pursuant to a panchayat by P.W.1 – son, P.W.3 - neighbour and others, the deceased was pacified and sent back to her house on 26.6.2002. (b)While so, on the fateful night, the accused asked her to serve food, but the deceased refused and went to sleep. The accused took his bed loaded with her thoughts, but he could not sleep. At about 2.00 a.m., he took an axe, which was kept in the thatched roof, and with the help of a light burning in the house, he inflicted a wild cut on the neck of the deceased Perumayee, who was sleeping in a mat, due to which, the head turned other side. The accused again inflicted another cut in order to decapitate her head, on account of which, blood oozed out from the decapitated portion. The head was loosely hanging with the body and the deceased was quivering. Again, with the axe, he beheaded fully and Perumayee died. (c)At about 2.30 a.m., the accused took the amputated head and went to the office of Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8, at Dharapuram and confessed to him that he killed his wife. P.W.9, village Assistant was also present at that time. The accused told them that he took the decapitated head and left the truncated body and the axe there itself. The statement of the accused was reduced into writing, read over to the accused and his thumb impression was obtained. The said statement is Ex.P.1, based on which, P.W.8 prepared his report, Ex.P.2. Thereafter, P.Ws.8 and 9 went to the scene of occurrence at about 3.15 a.m. to ensure about the occurrence, and on seeing the truncated body of the deceased in a pool of blood, P.W.8 left P.W.9 at the scene and proceeded to Omalur Police Station, along with the accused and the amputated head in a motor cycle. (d)P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty on 27.6.2002, and at about 4.30 a.m., P.W.8 appeared before him and handed over Exs.P.1 and P.2 along with the accused and the decapitated head. P.W.17 registered a case in Crime No.1047 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed F.I.R., Ex.P.24. He despatched the same to Court and copies to higher officials. He informed Inspector of Police, Taramangalam police station, who was in-charge of Omalur police station over phone. (e)On receipt of the telephonic message, P.W.18, Inspector of Police, proceeded to Omalur police station at about 5.00 a.m. on 27.6.2002, obtained a copy of the printed F.I.R. and took up investigation. He arrested the accused and examined him and he gave a statement, which was recorded. The admissible portion of the said statement is Ex.P.3, which was attested by P.W.8 and another. At about 6.30 a.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, he conducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inquest over the decapitated head, which was kept in the verandah of the police station and prepared Ex.P.25, inquest report. He also prepared observation Mahazar, Ex.P.26 in the place where the head was kept and thereafter, proceeded to the scene of occurrence. (f)In the meantime, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 were informed about the murder of their mother and they came to the scene of occurrence. P.W.3, a neighbour to the accused, on coming to know about the occurrence, came to the scene of occurrence at about 7.00 a.m. P.W.18, Inspector of Police, at about 8.30 a.m., in the presence of witnesses, observed the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.5. He drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.27 and at about 9.30 a.m., he seized blood-stained earth and sample earth - M.Os.7 and 8, a chimney lamp - M.O.9, a match box - M.O.10, blood-stained mat - M.O.11, blood-stained pillow - M.O.12 and blood-stained clothings of the deceased - M.Os.13, 14 and 16 under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P.6. He seized M.O.15, blood-stained axe from the backyard of the house under mahazar, Ex.P.7. Thereafter, in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the torso and prepared inquest report, Ex.P.28. He caused the scene, head and trunk of the deceased, to be photographed by P.W.10, photographer and obtained Exs.P.8 series, photographs and Exs.P.9 series, negatives. He joined the head with the torso and conducted inquest and prepared inquest report, Ex.P.29. Thereafter, he sent the body to the hospital through a police constable, P.W.14, with a requisition, Ex.P.22, to conduct autopsy. (g)On receipt of the requisition and the dead body of Perumayee, on 28.6.2002, P.W.16, commenced post-mortem at 10.10 a.m. and found the following:- " Two abrasions right chest 2 x 2 cm. each. Left side chest 2 x 3 cm. Contusion left occipital area 4 x 3 cm. Laceration left temporal area 3 x 1 cm. Bone deep, fracture left temporal bone 3 cm. length. Decapitation of head at the level of C4 & C5 and decapitated portion fits with the trunk on articulation of bones. The margins are sharp over both skin flaps, decapitated portion and trunk and corresponded to each other. A cut injury seen above the decapitated portion 10 x 2 cm. and margin are sharp. Fracture sternum at upper 1/3 to a length of 3 cm. Fracture ribs left side 2-9 laceration left hip 4 x 2 x 2 cm. A cut injury over left wrist with fracture both bones of forearm at lower end and the portion is hanging with a flap of skin. The doctor issued Ex.P.23, post-mortem certificate, opining that the deceased died of decapitation of head. (h)In continuation with the investigation, P.W.18 sent the material objects to the Court with a requisition to forward them for chemical analysis and received Exs.P.16 to P.21, reports of the respective https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ medical officers. He, thereafter, examined P.Ws.1 to 10, 12 and 13 and recorded their statements. Further investigation in the case was taken up by P.W.19, who, after verifying the investigation conducted by his predecessor and after examining witnesses, completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Court on 3.9.2002 against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. (i)On being committed to the Court of Sessions, it was taken up in Sessions Case No.206 of 2003 and charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant. Since the appellant/accused denied the complicity of offence, trial commenced. In order to substantiate the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.29 and produced M.Os.1 to 17, as referred to above. After the completion of evidence on the side of prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials appearing against him and he denied them as false and pleaded innocence. No witness nor any documentary evidence was produced on his side. (j)The trial Court, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary and upon hearing the submissions of both sides, found the appellant guilty of offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him as referred to earlier. Hence, the present appeal by the accused against his conviction and sentence. 4.The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused are that, (i)since there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and in the absence of any strong motive for the same, the extra judicial confession should be construed as a concocted one, prepared in order to suit the prosecution case and hence, cannot be accepted as true and voluntary; (ii)in view of the evidence of P.W.9, Village Assistant, who was present at the time when the accused confessed his guilt to P.W.8, V.A.O., to the effect that after he committed the murder of his wife, he left the axe there itself, i.e., near the truncated body, the recovery of weapon, M.O.15, pursuant to the statement of the accused, as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be believed; (iii)the presence of V.A.O., P.W.8 and his assistant, P.W.9 at odd hours in the office is highly doubtful; and (iv)the non-obtaining of signature of P.W.8 in the seizure mahazars, when he was admittedly very much available in the village all the time, creates a doubt about the genesis of the prosecution case itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Stoutly opposing the above submissions, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that, (i)in a gruesome murder like in the present case, the above contradictions put forth on the appellant's side could only be treated as trivial in nature and no importance could be given; (ii)moreover, in the instant case, the accused being the husband of the deceased and both were staying under the same roof, it is for the accused to explain as to how his wife met her end and in fact, within half-an-hour of the occurrence, the extra judicial confession by the accused to P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer, had come into existence and hence, it could not be a concocted one, as the same has been given voluntarily. (iii)therefore, the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the appeal has to be dismissed. 6.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record. 7.The point is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubts ? 8.The fact that the deceased Perumayee died on account of homicidal violence is not disputed by the defence. The evidence of post-mortem doctor, P.W.16 and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.23, clinchingly show that the deceased died due to decapitation of head. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. 9.This is a case where there is no eye witness and the prosecution solely relied upon the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1, given by the accused to P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer. In the said statement, he has stated that his wife, the deceased Perumayee was having illicit intimacy with one Subramanian, P.W.7 and since the accused questioned her conduct, she picked up quarrel and went to the house of P.W.7 and stayed there for one month. Thereafter, she was mollified by P.Ws.1, 3 and others and was sent back to the house of the accused. According to the accused, on that night when he asked for food, the deceased refused to serve him due to resentment, which infuriated the accused to wake up in the mid night and with an axe kept in the thatched roof, he decapitated her head and caused her instantaneous death. Immediately, he went to the office of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8 taking with him the decapitated head and confessed to his guilt. His statement was reduced into writing and after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ verifying the same by going to the scene of occurrence, P.W.8 went to the police station and lodged the complaint, resulting in the registration of the case. It is to be noted here that the accused after committing the heinous murder of his wife, took her head in his hand, went to the office of P.W.8 and from there, came back to the scene of occurrence with P.W.8 with the head in his hand and thereafter, they all went to the police station, where the complaint was lodged. This could be evidenced from the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and also from the observation mahazars, Exs.P.4 and 5. Thus, it transpires the ferocious mind of the accused. 10.1.The contention that in the absence of eye witnesses to the occurrence and the motive having not been strongly established, the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1, cannot be relied upon, is to be stated only to be rejected. We are aware that before relying upon the extra judicial confession, its truthfulness and credibility of the evidence of the witness, before whom it has been made, are to be judged. 10.2.The Apex Court, time and again held that the extra judicial confession cannot always be termed as a tainted evidence and corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone and it is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence and it depends upon several factors like the nature of circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession, vide GURA SINGH -vs- STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 323), as affirmed by its subsequent decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 SCC Crl. 1965) and in Sivakumar v. State [(2006) 1 SCC Crl. 470]. 10.3.In the case on hand, as already stated, immediately after the commission of offence, i.e. within half-an-hour, the accused went to the office of P.W.8 and confessed to his guilt. On going through the evidence of P.W.8, we could see that it comes from the mouth of a witness who is totally unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused and in spite of lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. The words spoken to by P.W.8 are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that it was the accused who committed such a gruesome murder of his wife and nothing was omitted by the witness which may militate against it. Further, the evidence of P.W.8 gets strengthened by the evidence of P.W.9, Village Assistant and P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.8 could be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.4. As laid down by the Apex Court, by way of an abundant caution, let us analyse the other circumstances which corroborate the evidence of P.W.8 and the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1. 11.The first circumstance is, the motive for the accused to commit the offence of murder. P.Ws.1 to 7 have been examined to speak about the motive, of whom, P.Ws.4 to 7 have turned hostile. However, P.Ws.1 to 3 have categorically stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and that a panchayat was also convened, in which the deceased and the accused were pacified. Though the witnesses have not directly spoken about the illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W.7, by way of corroboration with Ex.P.1, extra judicial confession, it can be easily presumed that there was no love-lost between the deceased and the accused and under such circumstances, the possibility for accepting the case of the prosecution that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W.7 cannot be ruled out. 12.The next circumstance is the recovery of M.O.15, axe, from the scene of occurrence. Of course, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the accused to discredit the evidence of the investigating officer with regard to the recovery of M.O.15, as per Section 27 of the Act. It is true that P.W.9, village assistant, has stated in his evidence that the accused came to the office of P.W.8 and confessed to him and P.W.8, that he committed the murder of his wife and that after committing the offence, he left the weapon there itself. However, according to P.W.18, the investigating officer, pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused, he was taken to the house and from the backyard of the house, the accused produced the axe, M.O.15, which was recovered under mahazar. The learned counsel attempted to invent a contradiction here that according to P.W.9 the accused left the weapon there itself, meaning thereby that near the trunk of the deceased, the recovery of the same by the investigating officer from the backyard of the house could not be believed. We are of the confirmed opinion that the confession of the accused that he left the weapon there itself should not be construed as the place near to the trunk of the deceased, but it should be construed as if the accused left the weapon at the scene of occurrence and not at a particular place. Hence, the contention is rejected and the recovery of M.O.15 and other material objects, viz., M.Os.7, 11 to 15 from the scene of occurrence strengthens the case of the prosecution further. That apart, the material objects, when sent for chemical analysis, were found to contain human blood of 'A' group tallying with the blood group of the deceased. 13.The contention that P.Ws.8 and 9 could not have been present at the office at that wee hours cannot also be accepted. It is their categorical evidence that they used to stay at the office whenever there is urgent work and on that day of occurrence, both P.Ws.8 and 9 stayed at the office and they were doing work regarding verification of pass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ book relating to issue of patta, as they have to submit the same to the Tahsildar. Hence, their presence at the office at the odd hours on that day cannot be doubted at all. Similarly, the contention that the signature of P.W.9 was not at all obtained in any of the mahazars, when he was very much available in the village all the time, should also be considered as a frivolous disparity for the sake of argument and no importance could be attached to it. 14.The above clinching circumstances, viz., quarrel between the deceased and the accused regarding illicit intimacy of the deceased; recovery of weapon, M.O.15 and other articles from the scene of occurrence; and the medical evidence, conclusively establish that it was the accused and none else, who committed uxoricide, by decapitation of head with an axe. Moreover, the fact remains that the accused is the husband of the deceased and they both were residing under the same roof and hence, it is for the accused to explain as to how his wife was murdered. On going through the materials, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In result, finding no iota of reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the accused, we dismiss this appeal and confirm his conviction and sentence. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sra To 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, OMALUR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SALEM 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL PRISON, COIMABTORE 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI 6. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OMALUR, SALEM 7. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 1 cc To Mr.V.Sairam, Advocate, SR.16548. C.A. No.951 of 2007. ASM(CO) RVL 23.04.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/