Case: Ponusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

2. Deceased Selvi was the wife of the appellant. She was earlier married to one Easwaran, PW-9. Allegedly Easwaran had married one Balamani and after divorcing her, he married the deceased. He, however, continued to have relations with Balamani. He purported to have divorced Balamani by a letter. The deceased was living with her mother Ramathal, PW-1. Appellant thereafter married the deceased. He had been informed, about the fact of the earlier marriage of the deceased. He agreed to the proposal of marriage but wanted two acres of land. A Deed of Gift in favour of the deceased was executed by her father. Appellant wanted the same to be registered in his name. His request was not acceded to. He left the house of PW-1 after three days of marriage. A year thereafter, he intended to live with the deceased and approached Thangavel, PW-2, therefor. As the deceased also agreed to the said proposal, they left the house of PW-1 on 5th March, 1997. She was not seen thereafter. Allegedly in the morning of 10th March, 1997, the appellant met PW-2 and informed him that the deceased had gone away from his house on that date. A search for her was carried out. On the next date, the appellant was seen at the Sevoor bus stop. Kannan Naicker, PW-10 was also present there. He asked the appellant and questioned the deceaseds whereabouts, in response whereto he allegedly disclosed that he had murdered her on 9th March, 1997. PW-10 allegedly became panicky. He became sick. He then requested Arunachalam @ Mani, PW-11, to take him to a doctor. When they returned from the doctors clinic, they found the appellant in the office of the Village Administrative Officer, PW-18. He purported to have made a confession again before PW-18 that he had murdered Selvi before PW-18. He also had a packer of paper in his hand3. PW-10 then requested PW-11 to inform PW-2 about the matter. On receiving the said information an attempt was made to lodge a First Information Report at Sathyamangalam police station. The First Information Report was refused to be registered thereat in the absence of any dead body or any other evidence with regard to the murder. A search was conducted for the dead body. On the bank of L.B.P. canal dead body was found on 14th March, 1997 which fell within the jurisdiction of Kadathur police station. A complaint was made before Ramasamy, Inspector of Police, PW-13, at 10.30 a.m. on the same day, whereupon a First Information Report was registered under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was taken up by PW-22, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Gobichettipalayam4. PW-1 identified the dead body on the basis of a talisman, which was found on her hand, as also on identification of her saree. A key was found tagged in the saree. The key was removed. On a query enquiry made by PW-22, in regard to the lock for which the key was used, it was stated that the lock was fitted to a trunk. The trunk was brought. The key was fitted in the lock of the trunk. It was opened with the said key5. An inquest was conducted. The dead body was also subjected to postmortem examination. In the said report it was stated:-Highly decomposed with maggots all over the body. Teeth 1/3 nose, eye, mouth absentThorax : No fracture ribsStomach, Liver, Spleen and Kidney : Partially liquefied with greenish dis-colourationIntestine, Bladder and Uterus : Partially decomposedHead : No fracture skull6. PW-18, the Village Administrative Officer, in the meantime took the appellant to the Tahsildar, PW-19. Not only he confessed that he had murdered his wife and thrown the dead-body in the canal but also produced a thali chain, M.O. 1 and ear rings, M.O.2 belonging to the deceased. Confessional statement of the appellant was reduced into writing. He was thereafter produced before the Judicial Magistrate7. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the occurrence8. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment found the following circumstances to arrive at his conclusion with regard to the guilt of the appellant. :-1) Deceased was last seen in his company on 5th March, 19972) She was not seen in anybody elses company between 5th March, 1997 and 10th March, 19973) Appellant made an extra judicial confession not only before PW-2 but also before PWs. 10 & 184) On the basis of his confession that the dead body had been thrown in L.B.P. canal a search for the dead body was made and recovered5) Dead body was that of a female. It was identified to be that of the deceased with reference to the manglasutra and some other jewellery which were found on her person. Photograph of the deceased was superimposed on the photograph of the dead-body and it was found to be that of her6) Appellant produced the belongings of the deceased before the Village Administrative Officer, PW-18, which admittedly belonged to her9. The appeal preferred there against by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

Reasoning: 11. The relationship of the appellant with that of the deceased is not in dispute. That they were married and immediately thereafter started living in the house of P-1 is also not denied or disputed. It further stands established that PW-2 is the husband of Rukmani, another daughter of PW-1. It has also not been disputed that the deceased was earlier married to Easwaran, PW-9. The prosecution has also brought on record a Deed of Gift dated 25th January, 1996 executed by the husband of PW-1 in favour of the deceased. There is also no serious dispute that the appellant did not maintain any relationship with the deceased for about a year. They were last seen together on 5th March, 1997, when they travelled together from the house of PW-118. We have to consider the factual background of the present case in the light of the relationship between the parties. If his wife was found missing, ordinarily, the husband would search for he. If she has died in an unnatural situation when she was in his company, he is expected to offer an explanation therefor. Lack of such explanation on the part of the appellant itself would be a circumstantial evidence against him24. We must also take into consideration the fact that the dead-body was decomposed with maggots all over it. Other marks of strangulation which could have been found were not to be found in this case. The dead body was found after a few days. We are, therefore, of the opinion that medical evidence does not negate the prosecution case25. There cannot be any doubt that extra judicial confession is evidence of weaks nature as has been held in Kuldip Singh and another vs. State of Punjab : (2002) 6 SCC 757. However, it must also be noticed that therein, not only the confession made by the appellant was found to be unbelievable, even the recovery of the dead body, pursuant to the disclosure statement made, was also found to be so. There was no other evidence on record on the basis of which the conviction of the appellant could be sustained. In this case, however, not only an extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before PW-10, the same was also made before PW-11. The jewellery which had been put on by the deceased was produced by the appellant. Only upon the disclosure made by the appellant that the dead body had been thrown in the canal, a search was made and it was found. The dead body was also identified to be that of the deceased27. We have been taken through the evidence of PW-10 and PW-18. We have no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Judge as also the High Court that the extra judicial confession was voluntary or truthful.