Govindan vs State

M. Chockalingam, J.—The first accused in S.C. No. 30 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, has brought forth this appeal.

A-1 stood charged and tried along with three others, who were arrayed as A-2 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read

with 34 IPC. and 201 read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge found A-1 alone guilty u/s 302 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment, and also

directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. A-1 was also found guilty u/s 201 IPC. and

awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of six months rigorous

imprisonment, with a further direction that the sentences should run concurrently. The other accused, viz., A-2 to A-4 were acquitted of the

charges under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. and 201 read with 34 IPC.

The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:-

P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, Vasanthakala. P.W.2 and her husband along with the other family members were living in Melapunjai

village. A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. A-4 is the mother of A-2. They were all living in Thenkarambalur village. When A-1 went to Melapunjai

village to attend a function, he developed intimacy with Vasanthakala, the deceased in the case. It came to the knowledge of P.W.2 and other

family members. They made an attempt that the marriage should be performed between the two. But the other accused were not amenable.

Hence, the matter was brought to P.W.20, the Head Constable attached to Vanapuram Police Station and pursuant to a complaint, a panchayat

was convened, where it was settled that marriage should be performed between A-1 and Vasanthakala. Accordingly, the said marriage was

solemnized on 9th February, 1998.

After the marriage, A-2 to A-4 were started demanding dowry by way of cot, jewels, bureau etc. and began to ill-treat Vasanthakala. She

informed the said demand to P.W.2 and other family members. But P.W.2 informed her daughter that she should obey the words of the elders in

the family and also stated that she will give the sridhana articles demanded above soon. A-1 and Vasanthakala went to Melapunjai village to attend

a function and they stayed there for five days and thereafter, left for their place. Since there was a drama in Melapunjai village, P.W.2 invited her

daughter and her son-in-law and accordingly, both of them went to Melapunjai village and on the next day, they left for their village. Thereafter,

P.Ws.2 to 4 went to Moolakkadu to attend the death ceremony of one Thavamani. A-1 and Vasanthakala also came there. When P.Ws.2 to 4

invited Vasanthakala and A-1 to their house, A-1 refused to go with them. Thereafter, P.W.2 returned to her village. Again, P.W.2 went to

Moolakkadu to attend the 8th day ceremony of the said Thavamani and at that time also, she sent her son to the village of A-1 to invite her son-in-

law and Vasanthakala to attend the said ceremony. On that day also A-1 refused to go with him and Vasanthakala alone came to the said place,

where she stayed for a week. During that time, since Vasanthakala was not well, she had treatment at Thiruvannamalai. When she was medically

examined, P.W.2 came to know that Vasanthakala was pregnant. A-1 did not make any attempt to see his wife or to take her back to his house.

However, by mediation, she was sent back to the house of A-1.

While the matters stood thus, P.W.6, the sister-in-law''s son of P.W.2, decided to go to the village of A-1 to get back his money from one

Moorthy. At that time P.W.2 informed P.W.6 to see her daughter Vasanthakala. Accordingly, he went to the house of A-1 and saw A-1 and

Vasanthakala inside the room. He stayed over there that night. On the next day morning, P.W.6 and A-1 went to the land of A-1. After sometime,

A-1 brought Vasanthakala to the land. P.W.6 saw both of them entering into the pump shed. At that time, A-2 and A-4 were doing agricultural

operations. At about 3.00 p.m., when P.W.6 went to the nearby bus stop to go to his village, he was informed by a villager that Vasanthakala

died. Immediately, he went to the place, where he was informed that the dead body of Vasanthakala was taken to the house of A-1. Then he

rushed to Thiruvannamalai and gave information to P.W.2. P.W.4, the elder brother of Vasanthakala, the deceased, rushed to the village and on

information, P.Ws.2, 3 and other villagers arrived by 10.00 p.m.

According to P.W.7, when he heard the cries, he got into the pump shed and saw the dead body of Vasanthakala hanging in an iron rod by

tying with a rope. He immediately cut the rope and put down the dead body on the floor. On coming to know about the same, P.W.5, the brother-

in-law of P.W.2, assaulted A-1 on his cheek stating that it was he, who killed Vasanthakala. Thereafter, Pandurangan, the husband of P.W.2,

along with another went to the police station to give a complaint.

P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, on the morning of 13.6.1998, went to the village of A-1, where he was informed that Vasanthakala,

the wife of A-1, died in a suspicious manner. On getting the said information, he went to Vanapuram Police Station at 9.00 a.m. and gave a

complaint under Ex.P-1 to P.W.22, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which, a case in Crime No. 191 of 1998 was registered u/s

174 Cr.P.C. The copy of the first information report is Ex.P-17. Since the occurrence took place within seven years from the date of marriage of

the deceased with A-1 and that it was also a dowry death, he prepared a Special Report under Ex.P-18 and sent the same along with the copy of

the printed first information report to P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, who came to the spot, conducted inquest in the

presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report under Ex.P-19. At the time of inquest, he also examined the witnesses and recorded

their statements. At that time, A-1 gave an extra-judicial confession, which was marked as Ex.P-20. P.W.19 handed over A-1 to the police.

Thereafter, he sent a requisition under Ex.P-10 through a Police Constable to the doctor for conducting autopsy.

On receipt of the requisition, P.Ws.15 and 16, the Medical Officers attached to Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, conducted autopsy on

the dead body of Vasanthakala and had given the post-mortem certificate under Ex.P-13 reserving their opinion pending receipt of the chemical

Analyst''s report.

In the meantime, P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, prepared his report under Ex.P-23 and sent the same along with the statement of the

witnesses and the inquest report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, wherein he has stated that death was not on account of

dowry harassment, since A-1 confessed that he has murdered his wife.

P.W.23, Circle Inspector of Police, Thandarampattu Police Station, on getting information about the death of the deceased, went to the place of

occurrence, where he prepared an observation mahazar under Ex.P-8 and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P-28 and also seized M.Os.3 and 9.

Thereafter he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14.6.1998 he received the inquest report from P.W.19, the Revenue

Divisional Officer, on the basis of which, he altered the crime to one u/s 302 IPC., prepared the express report under Ex.P.13, and sent the same

to Court. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report, he arrested A-1, who gave a confessional statement, the admissible part of which is marked

as Ex.P-2 and pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, rope. All the material objects were sent to Court for chemical analysis. A-2 to A-4

were also arrested and later, they were sent to Court for remand. On completion of the investigation, P.W.23 filed the final report against A-1/the

appellant and the other accused.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the

appellant and three others, the prosecution marched 23 witnesses and relied on 33 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the evidence

on the side of the prosecution, A-1/appellant and the other accused were questioned u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances

found in the evidence of the witnesses. They flatly denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court, after hearing the

arguments advanced by either side and on scrutiny of the materials found A-1 alone guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. and

awarded the sentence as referred to above. The trial Court acquitted A-2 to A-4 in respect of all the charges levelled against them. Hence, this

appeal at the instance of A-1/the appellant herein.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia made the following submissions:-

In the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied only on circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.7 and 8 were examined to

speak about the fact that they found the dead body of Vasanthakala in the pump shed. They had spoken to that fact. But, P.W.7 has turned

hostile. P.W.8 has given evidence that Vasanthakala committed suicide by hanging herself. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution

was the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by A-1 to P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was marked as Ex.P-20.

This was the only circumstance relied on by the prosecution, which was accepted by the lower Court also for finding the appellant/A-1 guilty. But

there are so many circumstances which would create a doubt about the recording of the statement by P.W.19 as claimed by the prosecution.

Ex.P-20 did not contain any office seal of P.W.19, while the other statements recorded by him contain the office seal. The very reading of Ex.P-20

would reveal that it should have been filled up after getting the signature of A-1/appellant. Even during cross-examination, suggestions were put that

the signature of A-1/appellant was obtained in blank papers and subsequently, they were filled up to suit the prosecution case. The lower Court

has not considered these aspects of the matter. While the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to P.W.19 is shrouding with

suspicious circumstances, Ex.P-20 has got to be eschewed. The prosecution had no evidence to offer. The lower Court has also not ready to

believe the case of the prosecution that there was a dowry demand made by A-2 to A-4 and hence, acquitted all of them with regard to the said

offence. It is not the case, where the prosecution lacks evidence, but it is a case, where the prosecution has no evidence to offer and therefore, the

lower Court should have acquitted A-1/the appellant also and justice has got to be rendered by this Court.

The Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the above contentions.

The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by either counsel. It is not in controversy that the daughter of P.W.2, one

Vasanthakala, was given in marriage to A-1 and they are living together and on the date of occurrence, her dead body was found in the pump

shed, as per the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, a case came to be

registered u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the inquest conducted by P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the body was subjected to post-

mortem by P.Ws.15 and 16, the doctors attached to Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, who gave the post-mortem certificate under Ex.P-

13, and they have stated in their evidence that Vasanthakala died due to asphyxia. Thus it would be quite clear from the available evidence that

Vasanthakala met with an unnatural death. In the instant case, the cause of death of Vasanthakala was not disputed by the appellant/A-1 either

before the trial Court or before this Court and hence, it could be safely concluded that Vasanthakala died by reason of unnatural death.

In order to substantiate the fact that it was A-1/appellant, who caused the death of his wife, Vasanthakala, by giving poisonous substance mixed

with water and thereafter strangled her by a rope, the prosecution examined P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 and also relied upon Ex.P-20, the extra-judicial

confession, alleged to have been given by A-1 to P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, at the time of inquest conducted by him.

Insofar as the witness P.W.6 is concerned, he has not whispered anything about the occurrence. P.W.7 has turned hostile and insofar as P.W.8

was concerned, he has stated that Vasanthakala has committed suicide and thus, from the perusal of the above said evidence, the Court is of the

considered opinion that the said evidence was not helpful to the prosecution.

The next piece of evidence available for the prosecution was the extra-judicial confession marked as Ex.P-20. On receipt of the copy of the first

information report and other documents, P.W.19, the Revenue Divisional Officer, went to the spot. According to him, he conducted inquest in the

presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest report and at that time, A-1/the appellant was very well available in the said place and he

volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded by P.W.19 and the same was marked as Ex.P-20. He has also handed over the

same to the Inspector of Police. We have perused Ex.P-20 and the said document did not contain the office seal of P.W.19. According to

P.W.19, whenever he goes on camp, he used to take his office seal with him. But Ex.P-20 did not contain his office seal and except the said

document, the other statements given by the witnesses and recorded by him contain his office seal. Hence, it casts enormous doubt as to whether

Ex.P-20 could have come into existence, as put forth by P.W.19. In the instant case, a perusal of Ex.P-20, would clearly reveal that the signature

of A-1/appellant could not have been obtained after the said document came into existence, but his signature should have been obtained in a blank

paper and it should have been filled up thereafter. In the instance case, what was suggested to P.W.19 in the cross-examination and also the

statement of A-1 recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. were to the effect that the A-1 was kept in police custody before his signatures were obtained in

blank papers and it has been filled up subsequently. In that regard, there was an admission that a petition was given to the concerned Collector and

enquiry in that regard was also ordered.

Under such circumstances, all would go to show that Ex.P-20 could not have come into existence, as put forth by the prosecution. Hence, the

Court is of the considered opinion that all the above doubts on Ex.P-20 would be suffice to reject said document and under such circumstances,

the prosecution had no evidence to offer for finding A-1 guilty and the lower Court, by giving undue importance to Ex.P-20 without considering the

available circumstances, has found the said document as a reliable one, which in the opinion the Court, has got to be set aside. Hence, the benefit

of doubt has got to be given to A-1, which he is entitled to. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower Court is set aside and the appellant /A-1 is

entitled for the benefit of doubt.

In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1/appellant are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted. It is

reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.