Murugan vs The Inspector of Police

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The sole accused in this case, who was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376(1) read with 511 IPC and sentenced

to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also

convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to

undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, has preferred the present appeal.

Learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai having thoroughly adverted to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and the documentary evidence in

the form of Exs.P1 to P18 and Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7 has returned a verdict of conviction as stated supra.

The case in brief of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence adduced on their side is as follows:

The deceased Tamilselvi is none other than the wife of Andrews-P.W.1. They had been blessed with three children. Except Romeo-P.W.10, the

other two children were staying in a hostel.

P.W.1 is carrying on groundnut cake business in the ground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. P.W.1, the victim and their daughter

Romeo were staying in the upstair portion of the said house. The accused Murugan was employed as an assistant in the said shop and he was

staying in the ground floor itself, where the business was carried on. The deceased used to get his ration of food from P.W.1.

On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 pm the victim went to the ground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of food to the accused. P.W.1

waited for some time, but the victim had not returned. He came down to the ground floor and heard an alarming noise. When he attempted to push

the outer door of the ground floor he found that it was locked from inside. P.W.1 went around the house and peeped through the window. He

found to his shock that the accused, taking position on his wife who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulate her. Thereafter the accused

opened the door from inside and sped away from the scene of occurrence.

P.W.1 gave a chase accompanied by Elumalai-P.W.2. The accused took shelter in a nearby bush. He went to the church and informed the

people over there. He came down to his house and found his wife dead. Thereafter P.W.1 went to Kolathur police station and lodged a complaint,

Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.9, who was present over there. The latter registered a case in Crime No. 1050/2000 for the offence

u/s 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR-Ex.P9 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the

higher officials.

The Inspector of Police, Mr.Natarajan - P.W.13, who was incharge of the said police station when Varadarajan, the regular Inspector of

Police-P.W.14 was on leave, took up the case for investigation on receipt of a copy of the FIR and rushed to the scene of occurrence and

prepared the rough sketch-Ex.P12. He also prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P2 in the presence of Chellaiah, P.W.4 and another witness.

He held inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P13. At about 8.30 pm on the said day, in the presence of the aforesaid

witnesses, P.W.13 recovered thali chain-M.O.4 and packing material- M.O.7 under relevant mahazar, Ex.P3. He entrusted the dead body to the

Head Constable Mohan, P.W.8 for the purpose of taking the same to the doctor for conducting postmortem examination.

Dr.Deivasigamani, P.W.7, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the victim at about 11.40 am on 4.9.2000 and found the following injuries

and symptoms on the dead body:

A well defined incomplete oblique ligature abrasions mark in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 16 x 1 cms on the front, the ligature

abrasion was 8 cms below the chin and 6 cms above the suprasternal noted and the ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the neck. The

subcutaneous soft tissues underlying the ligature abrasion were found congested.

2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid bone found with extravasation of blood in the surrounding soft tissues.

Heart: Intact. Normal. Trachea: Empty. Stomach contained 200 ml of brown fluid with partly digested cooked rice particles. No definite smell.

The doctor in his postmortem certificate, Ex.P7, has opined that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation of

the neck. The postmortem constable, P.W.8, recovered the saree-M.O.1, jacket-M.O.2, and petticoat-M.O.3 from the dead body after the

postmortem examination was over and entrusted the same to the investigating officer for the purpose of further investigation.

The Inspector of Police Mr.Varadarajan, P.W.14, having joined duty on 4.9.2000 took up the case for further investigation in this matter. He

went to Redhills tank bund at about 5 pm on 6.9.2000 and arrested the accused Murugan in the presence of Palani-P.W.5 and Kadhirvelu-

P.W.6. The accused gave a voluntary confession statement and on the basis of the admissible portion, Ex.P6, of the confession statement, lungi-

M.O.5 and underwear-M.O.6 were recovered from the scene of occurrence. As P.W.14 found some nail marks on the person of the accused, he

sent the accused Murugan to the hospital for treatment. Dr. Megajabeen- P.W.11 medically examined the accused on 7.9.2000 at 12 noon and

gave first aid to the accused. P.W.11 has deposed before Court that the accused informed her while treating him that he sustained nail marks when

he was attempting to rape the victim.

Romeo, P.W.10, 14 years old daughter of P.W.1 has deposed that her father P.W.1 admonished the accused in an earlier occasion when he

made advances to his mother. She has also spoken to the fact that when she came down from the church she found her mother dead in the ground

floor of the house.

Dr.Gnanavendhan, P.W.12, forensic expert has spoken to the fact that the lungi sent for forensic examination was found with human blood of

''A'' group. The blood sample was collected from the victim and the same was classified as ''A'' group by the forensic expert. He has spoken about

the serologist report, Ex.P11, prepared and issued by him.

P.W.14 gave a requisition, Ex.P14, on 7.9.2000 to the Court to charge the accused for the offence u/s 376 IPC also. Having examined the

witnesses in this case and having completed the investigation, P.W.14, laid charge sheet as against the accused under Sections 376 and 302 IPC

on 30.10.2000. When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances made available against him, he denied each

and every circumstance as false and contrary to facts. The accused examined himself as D.W.1. No documentary evidence was marked on his

side. He has deposed before Court that he had affairs with the victim for about five long years and on the day of the occurrence the victim came

with the food meant for him at about 12.30 noon. It is his further version that when the victim entered into the room she voluntarily bolted the door

from inside and as usual the accused started embracing the victim, which was seen by P.W.1. He has also deposed that the injuries found on his

person were self- inflicted injuries on account of the threat which he received from the police during custodial interrogation.

The trial Court having placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.1, who is none other than the husband of the victim and the other testimony

available on record, has come to the conclusion that it was only the accused who not only attempted to rape the victim but also caused her death

by strangulating her.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there had been a delay of 2 1/2 hours in lodging the complaint. The occurrence is

said to have taken place at 1.30 pm, but the complaint was lodged only at 4 pm. The delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the accused would further contend that the complaint had been prepared with the assistance of an advocate Mr.Justin and that

therefore, the complaint is found with a concocted version as though the accused committed the murder. The conduct of P.W.1 is against nature in

asmuch as he had gone to consult the people at the church even before he came down to see his wife who was allegedly assaulted by the accused.

Referring to the postmortem certificate, learned Counsel for the accused would submit that strangulation had been allegedly done manually and

therefore, the prosecution story that the Thali chain was used for the purpose of strangulation would be totally untrue.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Judge having thoroughly browsed the evidence on record has rightly

returned a verdict of conviction and therefore, the said judgment warrants no interference.

P.W.1 is the husband of the victim in this case. He has cogently spoken to the fact that having waited for some time for the return of his wife,

he came down to the ground floor in search of her. By that time he heard an alarming noise and peeped through the window of his ground floor.

He found the accused taking position on his wife and attempting to strangulate her. It is his further version that when the accused came out running

he and P.W.2-Elumalai gave a chase to the accused. P.W.2 also has corroborated the version of P.W.1 to the effect that both of them gave a

chase to the accused immediately after the occurrence. It is the version of P.W.1 that he used to supply ration of food to the accused. The

occurrence took place when his wife came down to supply food to the accused. The testimony of P.W.1 inspires confidence of this Court. There

is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

P.W.11, doctor, who treated the accused has categorically deposed before Court that the accused informed her that he sustained injuries

when he made an attempt to rape the victim. The accused had not chosen to inform the learned Judicial Magistrate that he caused self inflicting

injuries under threat from the police as has been stated by him during the course of his examination before the Court. If at all the injuries found on

the person of the accused had been caused for the reasons stated by him, he would have at least informed the doctor who treated him or the

Judicial Magistrate who enquired about the treatment meted out to the accused at the time of remand. The nail marks found on the person of the

accused completely corroborates the version of P.W.1. The theory of the accused that he sustained injuries only on account of the threat wielded

by the police during police interrogation is found not acceptable to us. The nail marks on the person of the accused unerringly point to his role in

the crime alleged against him.

Of course there had been some delay in lodging the complaint. If we carefully go through the evidence of P.W.1, we can find that he went to

the police station only after verifying the condition of his wife. In all fairness P.W.1 would admit that he informed about the occurrence to one

Mr.Justin, an advocate by profession. There is no evidence to show that the complaint was drafted only as per the dictation of the above said

advocate. Therefore, the defence that the FIR was concocted does not appeal to us. The scene of occurrence is about 2 1/2 kms away from the

police station concerned. P.W.1 had witnessed the occurrence. He had found his wife lying on the floor partly without dress. She was found lying

dead. P.W.1 would have taken some time to console himself before setting the law in motion. Further when there is ocular testimony to point to the

involvement of the accused in this case, the delay, if any, will not go to the root of the case at all. The delay of 2 1/2 hours in lodging the complaint

to the police station, which is located 2 1/2 kms away, after taking some time to draft the complaint cannot be termed as inordinate.

P.W.1 has chosen to chase the accused along with P.W.2 and having found some people in the church, which is nearby, informed them about

the occurrence and thereafter came down to his house to verify the fate of his wife. P.W.1 should have been in a state of shock having seen the

accused strangulating his wife. It is quite common for a person under shock to share his grief to the persons who are found close by his residence.

It is not as if P.W.1 rushed straight to the police station after informing certain persons in the church without even verifying the fate of his wife. We

find for the above reasons that the conduct of P.W.1 cannot at all be termed as unnatural.

The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only on the basis of his confession statement his apparels had been recovered. It is

contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the accused, who was spotted committing the crime, would not have taken some time to

hide his apparels in a safe place. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 having witnessed the occurrence by peeping through the window

came down to the doorway with a view to open the door. The door was opened from inside by the accused. It is not as if the door was opened by

P.W.1 immediately after witnessing the occurrence through the window. The accused, who was inside the house, would have had time to remove

his apparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe place in the house. Further it will not take much of a time to remove the clothes by

a person who was in a hurry to escape from the scene of crime. In view of the above, we do not suspect the recovery of the apparels of the

accused made by the investigating officer. The recovery at the instance of the accused raises presumption of guilt as against him.

The postmortem doctor of course has stated that the strangulation has been made manually and the same has caused the death of the victim. If

we go through the entire text of the postmortem report it would reflect that the ligature mark was found over the front portion of the neck. That has

been scrupulously pointed out by the doctor, who conducted autopsy. Manual strangulation does not rule out from its import strangulation with the

aid of chain. Further the evidence of eye witness would show that the accused was found strangulating the victim.

It is an unfortunate case where the accused has come out with a repulsive counter version that he had some affairs earlier with the victim. When

he was found embracing the wife of P.W.1, it was witnessed by P.W.1. He has stated that he was not the author of the murder. If at all the victim

had an affair with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would not have come to light. But the version of the accused, who very much lived in

the ground floor, that for the past five years he had affairs with the wife of P.W.1, is found to be too big a pill to swallow.

Rejecting the various contentions raised by the appellant/accused the Court finds that the learned trial Judge has rightly returned a verdict that it

was the accused who had not only attempted to rape the victim but also murdered her.

In view of the above, we confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in

S.C. No. 1 of 2001 and dismiss this appeal.