Kumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu

2) Brief facts:

After the marriage, she was staying at her matrimonial home in a joint family consisting of her husband, Krishnan (father-in-law), Chellammal (mother-in-law) and Kumar-the appellant/accused, brother-in-law of the deceased. After one year of the marriage, a baby girl was born out of the said wedlock.

(b) It is the case of the prosecution that after the birth of the girl child, the deceased was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws to bring money from her parents in order to take care of the baby. On several occasions, she was forced and even harassed to arrange money from her paternal home in order to fulfill the demand of dowry. In addition to this, her brother-in-law, Kumar (the appellant-accused) had bad intentions towards her.

(c) On 15.08.2003, at 2.00 p.m., the deceased called her brother – Chandrabose (PW-1) over phone and informed him that her husband and in-laws are torturing her for the money and asked him to bring the money immediately, within one hour, failing which, she would kill her and her child. Since she disconnected the phone immediately, PW-1 tried to contact her but he could not get it. Thereafter, he spoke to his sister-in-law - Mariyayi (PW-3) about the same and asked her to visit the house of the deceased. At 3.30 p.m., PW-1 got a call from his elder brother that Vijayalakshmi and her baby died due to burn injuries. On the same day, PW- 1 registered a complaint with the Yercaud Police Station which was registered as Crime No. 350/2003 under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”). Taking note of the death of a 13 months’ old baby along with her mother by burning in the matrimonial home, the Superintendent of Police, Yercaud, himself took up the investigation. After one week of the said incident, it was published in the newspapers that the deceased had not committed suicide but it was a case of murder.

(d) During investigation, the role of the appellant-accused came to light whose intention was to rape her sister-in-law and, on the fateful day, when she was alone, he even attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. When Vijayalakshmi resisted him, he struck a blow with ‘poorikatai’ on her head due to which she fell unconscious. Taking undue advantage of her condition, the appellant-accused had sexual intercourse with her. Immediately thereafter, he attacked her 13 months’ old baby-Srimathi who was playing nearby by giving a forcible punch on her face on account of which she also became unconscious.

(e) It was further revealed during investigation that the appellant- accused with the intention of causing disappearance of evidence and in order to show it a suicidal case, caused death of Vijayalakshmi and her daughter by pouring kerosene and set them on fire. It was also revealed during investigation that the appellant-accused arranged kerosene for the same from one Selvi (PW-2) - the neighbour, on the pretext of cleaning a machine. He also narrated the whole incident to her and even threatened her to give a call to PW-1 impersonating the deceased, which she did.

(f) On the basis of the above said investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein under Sections 376, 302, 302/201 and 506(2) of IPC and the case was committed to the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Salem which was numbered as Sessions Case No.56 of 2004.

(h) Challenging the said order, the appellant-accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2007 before the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 23.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the trial Court.

According to her, she knows the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her child as her neighbours. She also identified the accused in the Court. She narrated that on 15.08.2003, when she was having lunch at her home, the appellant- accused called her and asked for some Kerosene for cleaning the machine. As requested, she handed over the Kerosene available in a 10 litre can. Within 10 minutes, when she came out of the house, she saw the appellant- accused standing on the rear side of the house who asked her to come by action. When she went there, the accused called her inside the house where she saw that Vijayalakshmi and her daughter lying without any sign of life. After seeing this, she asked the appellant-accused “You sinner. What did you do to her?” The appellant-accused told her not to shout. Thereafter, he told her that he had an eye on his sister-in-law. She further deposed that the accused informed her that since nobody was there in the house, he embraced her but when she did not agree for the same, he took a wooden ruler used to make ‘poorikattai’ and gave a blow on her head due to which, she became unconscious and fell down. Thereafter, he raped her and he also informed PW-2 that he will make it as if she had committed suicide. He also said that he punched the baby on her nose who was playing nearby and when the child cried, he put the child also near to his sister-in-law. Thereafter, the accused squashed her neck and threatened her not to tell this matter to anyone, otherwise, he will kill her also. On his direction, PW-2 made a call to the elder brother of the deceased over phone. In her evidence, she further deposed that at about 2.00 p.m., she ran from there and again returned to their house at 4.00 p.m. and saw that lot of persons were gathered at the spot. She further noticed from the kitchen that Vijayalakshmi and her child were burnt and lying in the hall. On 16.08.2003, she was examined by Revenue Divisional Officer but she did not depose much to him. On 17.08.2003, when she was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she deposed all the details to him. Similarly, on 19.08.2003 and 25.08.2003, she was examined by Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate Court respectively and she deposed the entire truth before them.

28), the District Revenue Officer corroborates each other. Even in cross- examination, PW-2 reiterated what she deposed in the examination-in-chief. There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony, on the other other hand, the same is acceptable if we consider other circumstances.

23) In the light of the above discussion, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits.

MAY 9, 2013.