Gurunathan vs State

N. Dhinakar, J.—The accused appeals.

The appellant was tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhannapuri in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1985 of a charge of murder with an

allegation that at about 5.15 P.M. on 27.1.1984, he caused the death of his wife Palaniammal by stabbing on her right and left side of the abdomen

with a knife, M.O.1. To prove the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 17 as well as M.Os.1 to 7

before the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved its

case against the appellant and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the said charge of murder. Hence, the present

appeal.

The appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the ""accused"" for the sake of convenience.

The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows:

The deceased is the wife of the accused and she is the daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. P.W.3 is a

cousin of the deceased and all of them were residents of Krishnapuram Colony at Pennagaram. The accused with his wife and six children, of

whom P.W.2 is the daughter, was residing on the northern side of the colony and P.W. 1 the father of the deceased was residing on the southern

side at a distance of half a furlong. After the first child was born, the accused had fallen into bad habits. He used to go home and beat the

deceased. The deceased, on such occasions will leave her matrimonial house with the children and go and stay with P.W.1. The deceased will be

pacified by P.W.1 and will be sent back to the accused house. Four months prior to the date of incident, the deceased and P.W.2 left to the field

to pluck groundnuts and on that night, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased, and the deceased as well as P.W.2 were beaten.

The deceased left the accused and went to the house of P.W. 1 and was staying in a separate house belonging to P. W. 1. She was eking her

livelihood by doing coolie work.

On the date of the incident. P.W. 1, who is also a coolie by profession, left the house seeking some coolie work, but, returned home at 9 A.M.

since he could not secure any job for the day. On the way, he saw the accused and one Perumal sitting in front of the house of Perumal. The

accused asked P.W.1 to send back his wife and said that if she is not going to respond, he will be leaving the village. P.W.1 returned home and at

about 1 P.M. a muslim gentleman of Pennagaram went to him and asked him to bring some workers to unload the tiles, which he had brought in a

lorry. P.W.1, then took the deceased, P.W.2. P.W.3 and others. They unloaded the tiles and the job was over by 5 P.M. When the witnesses and

the deceased were waiting to receive their wages, the accused reached the place and after catching the tuft of the deceased with his left hand,

stabbed her with M.O.1, a soori knife.

The accused, thereafter told the witnesses that others need not bother since he will be going to the police station to surrender.

P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police of Pennagaram Police Station was in the Police Station at 5.30 P.M. and the accused appeared before him

at that time, and produced M.O.1. He also gave a statement, which was attested by P.W.7. The blood stained shirt, M.O.2 and the knife, M.O.1

produced by him were recovered under mahazar, Ex.P.8 attested by P.W.7. On the basis of the statement given by the accused, a case in Cr. No.

20 of 1984 at Pennagaram Police Station was registered against the accused u/s 302 I.P.C. and Ex.P. 15 is the printed first information report,

prepared by P.W.10. The information was passed on about the registration of the crime to P.W.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, Pennagaram

Police Station.

On receipt of the information regarding the registration of a crime at 9 P.M., P.W. 11 went to the scene of occurrence at 6 A.M. on

28.11.1984 and after visiting the scene, prepared an observation mahazar. Ex.P.9 attested by P.W.7 and others. He also drew a rough sketch,

Ex.P. 16. P.W. 11 also recovered M.O.3 blood stained earth and M.O.4 sample earth under Mahazar, Ex.P. 10 attested by some witnesses and

in between 7.30 A.M. and 9.30 A.M. he conducted inquest over the dead body of Palaniammal, questioned P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others and

recorded their statements. Ex.P. 17 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over, the dead body was sent with a requisition for conducting

autopsy.

On receipt of the requisition. P.W.5. a Civil Surgeon attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital. Dharmapuri conducted autopsy on

the body of Palaniammal at about 12.10 P.M. on 28.1.1984 and found the following injuries:

An incised wound 4 � 1 � 12 cm over the right hypochondriac region of the abdomen.

An incised wound 2 � 1 � 1/2 cm over the left hypochondriac region of the abdomen.

Blood clots seen in the subcutaneous region behind the injury 1 and 2.

P.W.5 issued Ex.P.2, the post mortem certificate opining that external injury No. 1 which has caused damage to the liver is sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that both the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1.

Meanwhile, P.W. 11 continued his investigation and questioned the accused, who was thereafter sent for remand. He also issued a requisition

to record the confession statement of the accused and on receipt of the requisition. P.W.6 the Judicial Magistrate. Kulithalai, directed the accused

to be produced before him on 3.2.1984 and accordingly, he was produced at 2.30 P.M. The learned Magistrate, after sending out all the persons

present in the Court administered wanting to the accused as could be seen from Ex.P.4. The accused wanted to confess and the Magistrate sent

the accused to judicial custody for him to reflect with a direction that he must be produced on the next day. On 4.2.1984 the accused was

produced before the learned Magistrate at 3.45 P.M. and after following the procedure, the learned Magistrate also administered a final warning

as seen from Ex P.5. The accused wanted to confess and thereafter, the Magistrate asked the accused to give a statement and accordingly, the

accused comes out with a statement which stands marked as Ex.P.6 in the case. After obtaining the signature, the learned Magistrate affixed his

certificate. Ex.P.7 in the said statement. The accused was then sent for judicial custody.

P.W.11 in the meantime, questioned P.Ws.4 and 5 and recorded their statements and the material objects seized in the case were also sent to

the Court with a request to forward them for analysis. Exs.P. 13 and P. 14 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively

which are to the effect that M.Os. 1 and 2, the knife and blood stained shirt of the accused contained human blood. After completing the

investigation, a final report was filed against the accused u/s 302 I.P.C. on 17.11.1984.

When questioned on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity and stated that

the confession made to the Magistrate was only on the instigation of police officers. In short, in 313 Cr.P.C., he had gone back on the statement,

Ex. P. 6 by retracting the said statement. He denied his complicity in the crime.

The case of the prosecution that the deceased Palaniammal died on account of homicidal violence is not disputed and the said fact also stands

proved through the evidence of the post-mortem Doctor P.W.5, who, after conducting autopsy on the dead body gave his certificate, Ex.P. 17

and was of the opinion that external injury No. 1 which has caused damage to the liver is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the deceased Palaniammal died on account of homicidal violence.

It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the accused and the incident was witnessed by

P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.3 is the cousin of the deceased. It is in evidence

that the accused, after the birth of the first child, had taken to drinks and used to beat his wife after picking up quarrels. Four months prior to the

date of the incident, the deceased and P.W.2 were beaten during the quarrel and the deceased left the house and was staying in a house belonging

to P.W. 1 along with her children. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that few days prior to the incident, the accused went to the house of P.W.1 and

asked his wife to accompany him, to which the deceased refused. He also used abusive language against his wife. One of the sons who was

present had beaten the accused and the accused was pacified by P.W. 1. From the above materials, it is clear that the accused had a grievance

against his wife for not going and living with him. This is said to be the motive for the incident which occurred in this case.

On the date of the incident, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others along with the deceased were unloading tiles and at about 5 P.M., the job was over.

They were waiting to receive their wages and at that time, the accused appeared at the scene, caught hold of the tuft of the deceased with his left

hand and stabbed her twice on the abdomen with M.O.1 soori knife, which was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. Nothing had been elicited from these

witnesses to show that they were speaking falsehood. We have no reason to reject their evidence. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, we

also have the judicial confession, Ex.P.6 given by the accused to the Magistrate, P.W.6 which was recorded on 4.2.1984 by him. It is of course

true that the accused when questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. went back on statement by retracting the same by stating that he had given the said

statement only on the instigation of the police officers. The question that is to be decided is whether the confession was perfectly voluntary and if

so, whether it is true and trustworthy. The above two questions were answered by the Supreme Court in Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR

1978 S.C.1248) : 1978 LW Crl) 58 SN . The Supreme Court in the above judgment held that satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its

admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned in

Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected brevi manu. In such a case, the question of proceeding further to apply the

second test, does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the Court must, before acting upon the confession reach the finding that what is stated therein

is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a confession, or for that matter of any substantive piece of evidence there is no rigid canon of

universal application. Even so, one broad method which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The Court

should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities

of the case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest

of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test.

When we apply the above principles, the confession when compared with the evidence and in the light of the circumstances and probabilities of

the case, for us, looks to be true and voluntary. A retracted confession can also be acted upon if there is general corroboration for the said judicial

confession. A perusal of the judicial confession Ex.P.6 clearly shows that after the incident, he went to the police station. This part of the statement

is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 10, who in his evidence has stated that the accused appeared at the police station at 5.30 P.M. and gave

a statement. At this stage, we may say that though the statement is inadmissible in evidence since it is a statement given by the accused to a police

officer, but the fact that the accused appeared at the police station and gave statement is admissible as conduct relevant u/s 8 of the Evidence Act.

Further, the accused in his confession has stated that he went to the scene of occurrence where the witnesses were unloading tiles and stabbed her

to death. P.Ws.1 to 3 corroborate the said judicial confession on this aspect also It is also relevant to note that M.O.1, soori knife was produced

by the accused when he appeared at the police station and the same was seized under mahazar along with a blood stained shirt which he was

wearing. When these objects were sent for analysis, they were found to contain human blood as per the reports of the Chemical Analyst and

Serologist. This is yet another corroboration for the confession, Ex.P.6 given by the accused. The fact that the accused has retracted the

confession by itself is not a ground for us to reject the said confessional statement. The Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra has further

stated that where the confession was not retracted at the earliest opportunity, but, after lapse of several months and when prosecution evidence

was closed, and during examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the circumstance reinforces the conclusion that confession was voluntary.

A similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in another judgment reported in Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1978 S.C. 1399 ). In

the above judgment, the confession was made on 14.6.1974 and the trial commenced on 10.1.1975. When charges were framed and read over to

the accused, the accused in the above case did not retract the confession on that date though pleading not guilty to the charges and the confession

was retracted only on 14.6.1975 when he was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. On these facts, the Supreme Court took the view that the fact that the

confession was not retracted at the earliest opportunity militated to some extent against the contention of accused that the confession was recorded

under pressure of the police. The above principle apply with all force to the facts of the case. We have no reason to reject Ex.P.6 given by the

accused to P.W.6 more so, when there is general corroboration for several particulars mentioned in the said confessional statement. We therefore,

accept Ex.P.6 as voluntary and that the statement made therein as true.

On the discussion made out we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the accused committed murder of his wife Palaniammal by

stabbing her to death. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing him and we see no reason to interfere with the said

findings and conclusions. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.