Pokkesan @ Pokkesh vs State

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to the Judgment of the Sessions Division (Mahila Court) Cuddalore made in S.C. NO. 280 OF

2007 whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty u/s 302 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.

10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(a) Indumathy is the deceased. The accused married the deceased Indumathy four months prior to the occurrence. The accused already got

married and had two children and the first wife is also alive.

(b) PW1 is the mother of the deceased. Both Indumathy and deceased were living separately in R.S.Mani Nagar, Panruti. PW1''s house is situated

� mile away from the accused house. The accused was demanding money from Indumathy and quarreled with her often. On 17.12.2006 at 8.45

p.m., PW1 came to her daughter''s house. In the meantime, the accused poured kerosene upon her daughter and ran away from the place of

occurrence and at that time, it was PW16 who took her in his cart to the Government Hospital, Panruti, where she was treated by PW2 doctor

attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti on 17.12.2006 at 9.05 p.m. and Accident Register extract is marked as Ex. P.1. Subsequently, she

was referred to Government Hospital, Cuddalore for further treatment wherein PW17, doctor gave treatment at 11.15 p.m and gave a Accident

Register Ex. P.22.

(c) On intimation viz.,Ex. P.6 from the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, P.W.12 Judicial Magistrate III, Cuddalore rushed to the Hospital and

after complying with all the formalities, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 11.30 p.m. The dying declaration was marked as Ex.

P.7. An intimation was also sent to the respondent Police Station. Thereafter, she was referred to Government Hospital Pondicherry.

(d) P.W.14, Head Constable on 17.12.2006 at night hours received an intimation from Government Hospital, Panruti and proceeded to

Government Hospital, Panruti and since she was referred to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, he proceeded to the Government

Hospital,Cuddalore and on 18.12.2006 at 9.00 a.m. and recorded the statement Ex. P.8 from the said Indumathy and on the strength of which, he

registered a case in Crime No. 945/2006 under Sections 366 IPC. Printed FIR Ex. P.9 was despatched to the Court.

(e) P.W..15 Sub-Inspector of Police,Panruti took up the case for investigation. On 18.12.2006 at 12.00 noon he went to the place of occurrence

made an inspection, prepared an Observation mahazar Ex. P.10 and also drew a rough sketch Ex. P.11. He recovered M.O.1, a kerosene plastic

bottle under the cover of Mahazar Ex. P.12.

(f) PW.23, Inspector of Police took up the case for further investigation. On 20.12.2006 at 4.45 p.m the accused was arrested. He gave a

confession statement voluntarily in the presence of witnesses. Since he had burn injuries, he was sent to the Government Hospital, Panruti for

treatment. After treatment, he was sent to Judicial custody.

(g) On 25.12.2006, he received an intimation from Government Hospital, Pondicherry that the said Indumathy died. Thereafter, the Section was

altered from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. Alteration report Ex. P.20 was despatched to Court. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence

of witnesses and panchayators and prepared Ex. P.21 Inquest report.P.W.10 Photographer, took photos of the deceased. M.O.2 series are the

photos of the deceased.

h) P.W.19, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of

the deceased on 25.12.2006 at 3.45 p.m. and has issued Ex. P.15, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that she died due to burn

injuries..

i) On completion of the investigation, P.W.23 filed the final report. On 11.2.2007 against the accused

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

accused, the prosecution marched 23 witnesses and also relied on 21 exhibits and 2 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the

prosecution, the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The court below heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the

view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused/appellant guilty as per the charge of murder and

awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Assailing the Judgment of the trial Court, learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

case. The prosecution, though attempted to show PW1 as eye witness, but in the cross examination, PW1 has stated that she has not witnessed

the occurrence. The prosecution had relied on dying declaration proceedings recorded by PW12 Judicial Magistrate III, Cuddalore at about

11.30 P.M. on 17.12.2006 and marked as Ex. P.7. This was preceded by another document Ex. P.1 which was recorded by PW2, doctor

attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti wherein it has been categorically stated that she has sustained burn injuries by herself and it was the

earliest statement made by the deceased which would be indicative of the fact that it was attempted by her to end her life and the subsequent

document was Ex. P.7 dying declaration recorded by PW12, Judicial Magistrate at 11.30 p.m. The admitted case of the prosecution was that it

was PW.16 who took her to Government Hospital,Panruti in his cart and at the time of cross examination he deposed that she was actually tutored

by the police and she was further instructed to say that the occurrence was happened because of the act of the accused, otherwise she would be

put in trouble. From this, it would be quite clear that the dying declaration given by her to PW12, Judicial magistrate was due to the result of the

tutoring. Hence, PW12, dying declaration in Ex. P.7 should not be given any importance. Added further the learned Counsel that, thereafter she

was taken from Government Hospital Panruti to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore where she was also given treatment and nowhere she has

spoken to the fact that it was the act of the accused. In the instant case, the accused also sustained injury, when he was attempted to quench the

fire. All would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. The alleged occurrence taken place on 17.12.2006, but th

said Indumathy died only on 24.12.2006 at the Pondicherry hospital, after a week. That would indicative of the fact that she was living for one

week. During which period, either the medical report or CD file was not placed before the Court to the effect that it was only the accused who has

caused the death and hence the said fact was not proved at all. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to place or prove the

necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The trial Court has taken an erroneous view and hence it is a fit case where the

judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.

The court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the

submissions made.

It is not in controversy that one Indumathy, daughter of PW1 and wife of the accused/appellant, following an incident at about 8.45 p.m. on

17.12.2006 at her house was originally taken to Government Hospital, Panruti and thereafter to Government Hospital Cuddalore and she was

taken to Government Hospital, Pondicherry for further treatment and she died on 24.12.2006. The prosecution produced Ex. P.1, Ex. P13 and

also other connected documents and the postmortem certificate where from it would be quite clear that the said Indumathy died consequent to the

burn injuries sustained by her on 17.12.2006 and this fact was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court and the trial Court was

perfectly correct in recording so.

In order to substantiate that it was the accused who poured kerosene on her by setting her ablaze, the prosecution placed much reliance on the

dying declaration recorded by PW12, the Judicial Magistrate concerned at 11.30 p.m on 17.12.2006. A perusal of Ex. P.7, dying declaration

would indicative of the fact that after following the procedural formalities PW.12 Judicial Magistrate, III Cuddlore recorded the dying declaration.

He has also obtained the medical opinion which would go to show that she was conscious and he has also received a certificate from the medical

person who also deposed before the Court that she was conscious to give such a dying declaration. If the dying declaration Ex. P.7 is perused, it

would be quite clear that the marriage between the accused and the deceased had taken place before four months and that on the day of

occurrence, there was a quarrel and the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her and he immediately left the place. Thereafter, she herself

made an attempt to quench the fire and subsequently, it was a third party who took her to Government Hospital, Panruti. While the occurrence has

taken place at 8.45 p.m., and the Judicial Magistrate concerned recorded the dying declaration at 11.30 p.m, it is pertinent to point out that even

before the case was registered by the police that was on 18.12.2006 at 9 .00 a.m., Ex. P.7 dying declaration proceedings have come into

existence, which would be indicative of the fact that dying declaration found therein has got be true and correct. Apart from that, learned Counsel

brought to the notice of the Court that dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to PW.12, Judicial Magistrate concerned was

only as a result of tutoring. In order to support his contention, he took the Court to go through the evidence of PW16. According to the

prosecution, it was he who took the victim to the Government Hospital, Panruti and at the time of cross examination, he stated that she was

actually tutored by the police to speak so and hence she has given such a dying declaration. This evidence of PW16 cannot be accepted, for the

simple reason that from the time when he took her in cart to Government Hospital, Panturi, the police had no role to play. Police was informed by

the hospital authorities, Cuddalore. Then, the Head Constable went to the Cuddalore Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased at

about 9.05 a.m. on 18.12.2006. Thus, it would be quite clear that the version of P.W.16 has got to be eschewed. At this juncture, the Court has

to necessarily point out the conduct of the accused. It was PW16 who took her from the place of occurrence to the Hospital. Though the accused

claimed to be present at the time of occurrence, that too, he made an attempt to quench the fire and in view of the same, he has also sustained

injury, he did not accompany her to the Hospital. He fled away from the place of occurrence. PW16 who took her to the Hospital has

categorically stated that it was he who alone took her to the hospital and nobody accompanied him and the conduct of the accused was that even

though his wife sustained burn injuries, he left from the place of occurrence and he was actually secured after a long time. He had taken treatment,

but it was only on 20.12.2006. The conduct of the accused under the stated circumstances would stand against him and it was only in favour of the

prosecution case. The earliest statement relied on by PW2 in Ex. P.1 in Government Hospital, Panturi at about 9.05 a.m., cannot be given

importance for the simple reason that she was under the excitement and this Court is unable to see any reason why the dying declaration alleged to

have been given before PW12, Judicial Magistrate III, Cuddalore under Ex. .P.7, has got to be disbelieved. In the absence of any reason to

discard or disbelieve the evidence, the Court has to necessarily act upon the same and to believe the prosecution story. It is well settled principles

of law that the dying declaration of the victim would suffice to sustain the conviction, when the prosecution proved the fact that the accused poured

kerosene and set fire on her.

Learned Counsel in the second line of argument would submit that even as per the dying declaration, there was a quarrel preceding the

occurrence and as a result of which, the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her. Learned Counsel took the Court to both the documents Ex.

P.7 dying declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate and Ex. P.8 statement given by the deceased to the Head Constable. When both are looked

into, it would be quite clear that the marriage took place just 4 months prior to the occurrence and suspecting her fidelity, there were quarrels

between them and on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel just preceding the incident and as a result of which, he poured kerosene and set

fire on her. In view of the circumstances attendant, the court is of the considered opinion that the act of the accused cannot be said to be one

premeditated or pre-planned or intentional, but it was due to sudden quarrel and provocation. Hence the act of the accused would attract the penal

provision of Section 304(I) IPC and awarding punishment of 7 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant u/s 302 IPC are set aside and instead, the appellant is convicted u/s 304(I)

IPC and is directed to undergo 7 years R.I. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be given set off. The fine

amount and default sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court will hold good. With the above modification in conviction and sentence,

this criminal appeal is disposed of