Case: M. Suseela Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

For committing the murder of Seethalakshmi, her husband Selvaraj2), the wife of elder brother ofwere out up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur vide its judgment dated March 23, 1987 convicted both the accused under Sections 302/34 and 202 IPC and sentenced both of them to suffer life imprisonment and RI for three years respectively. Two separate appeals were filed byin the High Court of Judicature at Madras and on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the High Court by its common judgment dated July 22, 1993 dismissed the same. It is against this judgment of the High Court,by Special leave have filed two separate Criminal Appeals Nos. 502 of 1994 and 501` of 1994 respectively to this Court. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. A marriage betweenand Seethalakshmi (since deceased) which took place on or about October, 1984 was proved to be unhappy within a short time. The elder brother of2 and her two minor children and Seethalakshmi were staying in one room tenement at village Ariyathidal, Taluka Kukbakonam in Thanjavur district.at the relevant time was doing the work of rickshaw puller and was earning his livelihood. It was alleged by the prosecution that within ten days of marriage,sold away the gold ring presented to him at the time of wedding and soon thereafter, he also disposed of all jewellery items given to Seethalakshmi during her marriage. On query made by Seethalakshmi about her jewellery items,got annoyed and beat her with the belt. It appears that on a complaint by Seethalakshmi to the Gram Panchayat in respect ofmeted out to her, a meeting was held and a fine of Rs. 15/was imposed onSeethalakshmi also suspected the conduct ofas it was rumoured that he was having illicit relations withBeing fed up with this atmosphere, Seethalakshmi came to her parents house. Vijayalakshmi3), parents of Seethalakshmi consoled her and sent her back to the house ofwith an advice not to get depressed by such incidents and things would be set right in due course. It was further alleged by the prosecution that a week prior to the date of incident, Seethalakshmi along withhis brother Subramaniam andcame to the house of parents of Seethalakshmi to celebrated a local festival called ``Thali (the sacred thread tied on the brids neck at the time of marriage). At that time,insisted that hisshould give money on this occasion. Due to financial constraints, Vijayalakshmicould not meet the said demand which according to the prosecution widened the strained relations further between the couple. Seethalakshmi thereafter returned to her matrimonial house but within a week, her parents received a message thatwas always quarrelling with her for not satisfying his demand. Seethalakshmi during her stay at her parents house complained to them thatng her for money and causing a lot of harassment to her. The quarrels between Seethalakshmi,were known to the persons residing in the adjacent houses. Shanmughamand his wife PushpavalliProsecution then alleged that on 11th April, 1985, at about 11.00 a.m.,picked up a quarrel with Seethalakshmi. Shanmughamwent and inquired withas to what the matter was and thereafter he left for Kumbakonam. Pushpavallia house wife also heard the quarrels between Seethalakshmi,2. At about 12.00 noon Krishnamurthia close relative came to meet Seethalakshmi and on inquiry with the accused, he was told that she had gone to Kumbakonam. Soon thereafter,left on bicycle. Shanmughamat about 1.30 p.m. returned to his house and at that time,told him that Seethalakshmi committed suicide and her body was hanging to the ceiling.requested to help him in lowering down the dead body but he refused to do so. On 11th April, 1985, at about 8.00 p.m.,lodged the FIR stating that Seethalakshmi had committed a suicide. A crime was accordingly registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 12th April, 1985 at about 4.00 a.m., the First Information Report was received from Sub Inspector Mr. Rosariowho then went to the spot immediately and held the inquest on the dead body. He seized the incriminating articles which were found in the room. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital at Kumbakonam forAfter completing the investigation, both the accused came to be charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Both the accused were arrested on 28th April, 1985 at Swami Malai bus stand.4. Both the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and according to them, they were not present at the time of alleged incident. According to them, when they returned home late in the afternoon, they saw the dead body of Seethalakshmi hanging and therefore,went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report. They have been falsely implicated in the present crime and, therefore, they be acquitted.5. The prosecution case entirely rested on the circumstantial evidence and in order to prove the same, it examined as many as 15 witnesses of whom Sunder Rajturned hostile. Prosecution also produced and relied upon the post mortem examination report and the piece of cloth and a nylon saree (MOs 1 and 2) which were seized under seizure panchanama from the place of incident.6. A serious challenge to the finding of the courts below that Seethalakshmi died a homicidal death was made before us. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Seethalakshmi had committed suicide and the medical evidence on record also supports the theory of suicide propounded by the accused. We will deal with this issue little later.7. Coming to the first circumstance, namely, the marriage between Seethalakshmi andwas a totally unhappy affair is proved by Vijayalakshmi), Shanmugham4). Vijayalakshmiare the parents of Seethalakshmi who had stated that within ten days of the marriage,had started disposing of the ornaments given to Seethalakshmi and on resistance by her,used to beat her. They further deposed that at the time of ``Thali ceremony,demanded money but due to financial constraints, they could not meet the said demand. Whenever Seethalakshmi used to come to their house, she used to narrate various painful incidents including beating and use of abusive language byFor no rhyme or reason,used to pick up quarrels with Seethalakshmi. This evidence of Vijayalakshmiwas accepted by the courts below and despite strenuous efforts, Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel was unable to persuade us to hold contrary. The evidence of the parents stood corroborated from the testimony of two neighbours namely, Shanmugham4). They testified that there used to be often quarrels between Seethalakshmi on one hand andon the other. After going through the evidence of these witnesses, we have no manner of doubt that there used to be quarrels in the house ofand Seethalakshmi was required to face themeted out to her by the appellants.8. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was thathad every opportunity to commit the crime in question as she was staying in the house ofher husband and two children. On the fateful day of occurrence, viz., 11th of April, 1985, at about 11.00 a.m., Shanmughamheard the noise of quarrel from the house of3) when went to inquire from the inmates of the house ofhe was not given proper reply and it is his positive evidence that at that time,on the one hand and Seethalakshmi on the other were quarrelling. He then left for Kumbakonam. Pushpavalliwho was in her house come out and saw the quarrels between Seethalakshmi on one hand andon the other. She then returned to her house. At about the same time, Krishnamurthiwho happened to be the close relative of Seethalakshmi came to the house ofto enquire about her and he was told that she had left for Kumbakonam. Some time thereafter, Pushpavalligoing on a bicycle. On careful consideration of the evidence of these witnesses, the courts below found the same as trustworthy and accordingly reached a conclusion that on 11th April, 1985 at about noon time, a quarrel was going on between Seethalakshmi on one hand andon the other and soon thereafter both the accused left on bicycle. We have perused the evidence of these witnesses and we see no reason to upset the said finding.9. The next vital circumstance is that Shanmughamsaw Seethalakshmi alive at about 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. in the company ofwhen they were quarrelling. Within two hours when Shanmughamreturned from Kumbakonam at about 1.30 p.m.,told him that Seethalakshmi had committed suicide. It is, therefore, clear that Seethalakshmi died during this period of two hours. Shanmughamthen testified thatmet him near his house and he requested him to help him in lowering down the dead body but, however, he refused to oblige him.

Reasoning:
All that their evidence indicated was that they heard the noise of quarrel coming from the house ofSimpliciter quarrel assuming thatwas in the house that by itself would not lead to a conclusion that she had also participated in committing the crime. The only circumstance used by the courts below against1 was having illicit relations withand it was because of thishad participated in the said crime. Except the bare words, in the nature of hearsay evidence of Vijayalakshmi), Shanmugham4), there was no other reliable evidence on record. Even these witnesses stated that they overheard about the illicit relations for which there might not be any foundation. The evidence of Vijayalakshmi), Shanmughamalso did not indicate thathad at any time causedfor money from the parents of Seethalakshmi. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt thathad shared a common intention to commit the murder of Seethalakshmi and/or to cause disappearance of the evidence to screen away the offender. It is in these circumstances, we give the benefit of doubt toand acquit her of all the charges. On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the order of conviction and sentence of G. Selvarajsuffers from no infirmity and therefore, calls for no interference.