Aarayee vs State, by Inspector of Police

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Aarayee, the accused herein was convicted for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. for having committed murder of one

Sathammai being aggrieved over her illicit intimacy with her husband. Hence, the appeal.

The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:

(a) The deceased Sathammai is a widow. Her husband died 20 years back. Her two children are working in Singapore. P.W.1 is the nephew of

the deceased. P.W.2 also is a close relative of the deceased. Aarayee, the accused is a milk vendor. Her husband Kuttaiyan was working under

the deceased Sathammai as a servant for doing agricultural work in the lands belonged to the deceased. The accused suspected that the deceased

had illicit intimacy with her husband. The accused used to supply milk to the villagers including the deceased.

(b) On 21.8.1999, when she gave the milk, she picked up quarrel with the deceased questioning her act of having sexual connection with her

husband. P.W.1 Muthukaruppan and P.W.4 Manickam pacified and separated them.

(c) On 26.8.199, the accused came in the morning to the house of the deceased for supplying milk. On that day also, she picked up quarrel with

the deceased accusing her that she continued to have illicit intimacy with her husband. The deceased replied that she never had any connection with

her husband as her husband is like her son. Despite this, the accused abused the deceased stating that she was keeping her husband. This

provoked the deceased to beat the accused. Then, the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences.

(d) On 26.8.1999 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased went to her field. After completing the work, the deceased was returning to her house. At that

time, P.Ws.1 and 2 were working in the nearby field. On noticing that the deceased was coming, the accused followed her. When both of them

came near the sluice (Kotti Kanmoi), the accused began to attack the deceased by inflicting injuries with aruval M.O.1. The deceased cried aloud.

P.W.3 Valli, an agricultural worker working in the nearby field heard the sound. She saw that the accused was cutting the deceased

indiscriminately. P.W.3 also shouted. On hearing the noise, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the scene of occurrence.

(e) In the meantime, the accused after inflicting several injuries on the deceased ran away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased was lying

down on the ground in a pool of blood gasping for breath. P.W.3 was sent to the village to bring a vehicle to take the victim to hospital. Before

P.W.3 came back to the scene, the deceased died.

(f) Leaving P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence, P.W.1 went to Namanasamudhram Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.10 Sub

Inspector of Police. A case was registered against the accused in Crime No. 156/99 u/s 302 I.P.C. Ex.P17 is the F.I.R.

(g) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, went to the scene of occurrence at 6.15 p.m. He prepared observation mahazar

Ex.P2 and drew rough sketch Ex.P18. He found human hair in the left hand of the deceased and recovered the same. He also recovered

bloodstained earth M.O.2, ordinary earth M.O.3, rope M.O.4 and rubber chappal series M.O.5. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the body

of the deceased. The inquest report is Ex.P19. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others. Then, he sent the dead body for post-mortem.

(h) On 27.8.1999, P.W.6 Doctor conducted post-mortem. He found six injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased would

appear to have died of haemorrhagic hypovolemic shock due to carotid artery cut injury and neck injury. Ex.P6 is the post-mortem certificate.

After the post-mortem, the bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered.

(i) On 28.8.1999, P.W.11,the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and on her confession, M.O.1 bloodstained aruval was recovered from a

bush. Thereafter, he sent the accused for judicial remand.

(j) On 31.8.1999, P.W.11 Inspector of Police sent a requisition Ex.P7 to the Judicial Magistrate to direct the Medical Officer to collect the hair of

the accused for the purpose of comparing the same with the hair collected from the hand of the deceased at the scene. Accordingly, the Judicial

Magistrate ordered.

(k) Then, on receipt of the requisition, the human hair collected from the accused was compared with the hair collected from the scene. Ex.P11 is

the Chemical Examiner''s report in which the opinion has been given that the hair of the accused and the hair collected from the hand of the

deceased are similar on comparison.

(l) P.W.11 Inspector of Police, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

(m) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, filed 19 exhibits and marked 8 material objects.

(n) When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., she simply denied her complicity in the crime.

(o) The trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her

thereunder. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed.

When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the counsel on record was not present. Therefore, this Court appointed Mr. S. Sivakumar as

Amicus Curiae counsel to appear for the appellant/accused and gave sufficient time for arguing the matter. Thereafter, the matter was again taken

up for final disposal today.

Mr. S. Sivakumar, the Amicus Curiae counsel appearing for the accused would take us through the entire evidence and point out various

infirmities and contend that those infirmities would affect the core of prosecution and as such, the appellant/accused is entitled to be acquitted. He

would also point out various circumstances in order to establish that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have been the eyewitnesses.

In the alternative, the counsel would submit that in any event, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C., as the occurrence

had taken place out of sustained provocation due to the fact that the deceased continued to have sexual relationship with her husband despite the

warning and as such, she could be, at the most, convicted for the lesser offence.

On these aspects, we heard the Additional Public Prosecutor.

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record and on hearing the submissions of the counsel on either side, we are unable to accept

any one of the contentions urged by the counsel for the appellant/accused, as, in our view, the materials placed by the prosecution are sufficient to

hold that the accused alone had committed the offence of murder.

There are three eyewitnesses. P.W.1 is the first informant. According to P.W.1, when P.Ws.1 and 2 were working in their field, they saw that

the deceased was being cut by the accused in the nearby land and on hearing the shouting of P.W.3, who was also witnessing the occurrence,

P.Ws.1 and 2 went near to the deceased and at that point of time, the accused ran away from the scene with the weapon.

Though P.W.1 would state in Ex.P1 complaint that P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the entire occurrence, the deposition given by P.Ws.1 and 2 would

reveal that they have seen only last portion of the occurrence. According to them, the accused after finishing the attack on the deceased, ran away

with the weapon. But, P.W.3 in her evidence has given the details as to how the accused attacked the deceased with the weapon M.O.1.

Though, as pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, P.W.3 would admit in the cross-examination that she saw only the accused running

away from the scene and she did not see any other thing, the fact remains that the deceased was found lying down on the ground with cut injuries

and the accused was running away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon carrying in her hand.

The occurrence had taken place at 4.15 p.m. On noticing that the deceased died on the spot, P.W.1 went to Namanasamudhram Police

Station and gave a complaint Ex.P1 at about 5.15 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 5 kms. Then,

P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint, registered the same and prepared F.I.R Ex.P17 and sent the same to the superior

police officers as well as to the Court. It is noticed that the F.I.R. and other documents have been received by the Judicial Magistrate at 9.45 p.m.

on the same day. Therefore, there is no delay either in lodging the complaint or in F.I.R reaching the Court.

Furthermore, there is no necessity for P.Ws.1 to 3 to speak falsehood against the accused. As such, the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 has

to be held reliable, particularly when their evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.6 Post-mortem Doctor and

Ex.P6, the post-mortem certificate.

One more important circumstance, which could be noticed in this case, is that the hair, which was found in the hand of the deceased recovered

at the scene, was found similar to the hair which had been collected from the head of the accused as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate. In the

questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused never stated that the hair stated to have been recovered from the scene was collected from the accused

when she was in illegal custody. Similarly, the accused was arrested on 28.8.1999 and on her confession, the bloodstained aruval was recovered

from the bush as pointed out by her. The bloodstained aruval with a human hair was found to contain human ''O'' group blood. The clothes of the

deceased also contained human ''O'' group blood. As such, the group of the bloodstains in the aruval was found tallied with the blood group of the

deceased. Under those circumstances, these materials would make it clear that the accused only committed the murder of the deceased and ran

away from the scene.

It was lastly contended that the occurrence had taken place out of sustained provocation. For this submission, there is no basis. It is true that

there are two incidents, which took place earlier to the main occurrence. One incident took place five days prior to the date of occurrence and

another incident occurred in the morning of the date of occurrence. On these two occasions, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased

accusing that the deceased used to have illicit intimacy with her husband. The occurrence had taken place only in the evening of 26.8.1999. Thus, it

is clear that when the main occurrence had taken place, there was nothing happened so as to provoke the accused further.

The deceased was found with six injuries on the vital parts of the body. The kind of the weapon M.O.1 used by the accused, the nature of

injuries, such as cut injuries on the lower jaw, right side neck, right fore-arm, fingers of the right hand, thumb and the eyes and serious injuries

found on internal examination in the neck muscles would clearly indicate that the accused with an intention to cause the death of the deceased

inflicted those injuries, which resulted in her instantaneous death.

Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused u/s 302 I.P.C. are perfectly justified. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed as devoid of merits.

Before parting with the case, this Court records its appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. S. Sivakumar, Amicus Curiae. The State

Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred) towards fee to the Amicus Curiae counsel.