Raju vs The State

P. Sathasivam, J.—The appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as accused),was charged for an offence u/s 302 IPC, for causing death of

his wife Chitra, at about 5.00 a.m. on 20.10.1993 near Sivagangai Park, Periya Koil Street, Thanjavur. The learned District and Sessions Judge,

Thanjavur, who tried the accused, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction

and sentence, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and produced M.Os.1 and 2. The accused has

produced and marked the Medical Report of the deceased Chitra dated 20.10.1993, as Ex.R.1.

As could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution can be narrated as under:

(a) The accused married the deceased in the year 1991 and they lived together happily for a period of six months. Both of them were working as

Conservancy staff in Thanjavur Municipality. The accused suspected the fidelity of his wife. As a result, there were frequent quarrels between

them. Six months prior to the occurrence, because of the said quarrels and ill-treatment by the accused - husband, the deceased left his house and

stayed with her parents, who are also residing in Thanjavur Town. At about 5.00 a.m. on 20.10.1993, when the deceased along with her parents

and sister, after taking tea, was proceeding near Sivagagai Park, Periya Koil Street to sign their attendance register, near Rajarajan Statue, the

accused, cut his wife with Aruval on head, neck and left ear indiscriminately. When the persons who accompanied the deceased tried to prevent

the accused, he ran away with Aruval. Immediately, the injured was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, where she died at 9.30 a.m. on

the same day.

(b) One Chelladurai, resident of Thanjavur Railway Colony, who is also working in Thanjavur Municipality as Conservancy staff was examined as

P.W.1. He is the brother of deceased Chitra. He explained about the marriage between the accused and his deceased sister in the year 1991,

misunderstanding and quarrels due to suspicion on conduct and character of the deceased by her husband etc., At 5.00 a.m. on 20.10.2003, when

P.W.1 along with his parents and sister, after taking tea, was proceeding near Sivagangai Park to enter their signatures in the attendance register,

near Rajarajan Statue, the accused came there with an Aruval and cut his wife on head, neck and left side ear indiscriminately. When P.W.1 and

others attempted to prevent him, he ran away with the Aruval. P.W.1 took his injured sister to the Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, where she

died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day. He made a complaint - Ex.P.1 to the Police.

(c) The mother of the deceased, step mother of P.W.1, one Saraswathy was examined as P.W.2. She also explained before the Court regarding

the marriage between the accused and the deceased, misunderstanding between them and the manner in which the accused came and cut the

deceased indiscriminately.

(d) Though one Babu, Co-worker, who also took the injured to the hospital and stayed with her till her death was examined as P.W.3, he turned

hostile. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the witnesses for the Mahazar and the arrest of the accused.

(e) P.W.6 is a Doctor attached to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. He has stated that on 20.10.1993 at about 6.00 a.m., one injured by name

Chitra was brought to casualty by one Babu and he informed that at about 5.00 a.m. near Thanjavur Cholan statue, he saw her lying on the road

with injuries. P.W.6, noted the injuries in the Accident Register - Ex.P.5. The Ward Doctor of the same Hospital was examined as P.W.7. It was,

he, who intimated the death of the injured to the Outpost Police Station attached to the Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. P.W.8 is the Doctor,

who conducted the Post-mortem. He noted 18 injuries, out of which injury No.1 to 11 are external and 12 to 18 are internal. He opined that the

deceased would appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage. Ex.P.6 is post mortem certificate.

(f) P.W.10 is a Head Constable, who recorded the complaint of P.W.1 as Ex.P.1 and registered the same in Crime No.651 of 1993 u/s 302 IPC.

He prepared the Express FIR - Ex.P.11 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate and to his higher authorities. P.W.11 - Investigating Officer,

on receipt of intimation - Ex.P.11, visited the mortuary at the Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur on 21.10.2003 and conducted inquest on the

body of the deceased Chitra in the presence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Sankaran. The inquest report has been marked as Ex.P.12. He

recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Sankaran. Around 11.00 a.m., he visited the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation

Mahazar - Ex.P.2 in the presence of P.W.4 and Dharmaraj, drew rough sketch - Ex.P.13 and inquired P.W.4 and others. On 23.10.2003, at

about 8.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.5 and one Raghu, near Ragavendra Temple Arch, he arrested the accused. The accused made a

confessional statement and P.W.11 recorded the same in the presence of witnesses and the admissible portion is Ex.P.3. At about 10.00 a.m., the

accused took P.W.11 and other witnesses to his house at Kakki Pillaiyar Koil Street and handed over Aruval M.O.1 and a Thali chain - M.O.2 in

the presence of witnesses. P.W.11 recovered both the Material Objects under a Mahazar Ex.P.4. P.W.11 also inquired P.W.5 and Raghu. On

25.10.1993, he inquired P.W.10 and others. On 05.11.1993, he sent a requisition - Ex.P.7 to the Court for sending the Material Objects for

chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, on 30.11.1993, P.W.11 filed a charge sheet against the accused u/s 302 and 506 (part 2)

IPC, before the Court.

When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances and further submitted that he has been falsely

implicated in the case. He also marked the Medical Report of the deceased dated 20.10.1993 as Ex.R.1.

We will now analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to find out, whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing their case,

namely that it was the accused, who murdered his wife Chitra.

Though on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined as eye-witnesses, P.W.3 - a Co-worker of the deceased, who took her to

the hospital, turned hostile, hence the witnesses available to speak about the motive and the manner in which the deceased was murdered are

P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is none else than the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and step mother of P.W.1. According to

P.Ws.1 and 2, the marriage between the accused and the deceased took place in the year 1991 and both of them were employed in Thanjavur

Municipality as Conservancy Staff. It is the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused suspected the conduct of the deceased, due to which they

quarrelled on many occasions. Six months prior to the occurrence, the deceased left the company of her husband and stayed with her parents. On

20.10.1993, at 5.00 a.m., when the deceased, her parents and sister were proceeding near Sivagangai Park to put their signatures in the

attendance register, the accused, after shouting against the deceased, cut her with Aruval - M.O.1 on head, neck, left side ear indiscriminately.

Though they were three in number, according to them, they could not prevent the accused from cutting her and he ran away with M.O.1 - Aruval.

According to them, the occurrence took place at 5.00 a.m. on 20.10.1993 and immediately, the injured was taken to Medical College Hospital,

Thanjavur, where, she died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day. Even if we accept that there was a motive and the prosecution has established the same

through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we are able to see the following infirmities in the case of prosecution.(i) According to P.Ws.1 and 2 -

eye witnesses, the occurrence took place at 5.00 a.m. on 20.10.1993 near Sivagangai Park. They also admitted that the distance between the

place of occurrence and Raja Mirasudhar Hospital is 100 feet; Town Police Station is also situate within four furlongs from the place of

occurrence. (ii) According to Doctor - P.W.6, the injured was taken to the hospital at 6.00 a.m. on 20.10.1993 by one Babu. It is not disputed

that even after taking treatment at the Hospital, the injured succumbed to the injuries at 9.30 a.m. on the same day. (iii) According to the

prosecution witnesses, there is an Outpost Police Station within the Medical College Hospital campus and even the Town Police Station is situate

within a distance of 4 furlongs from the place of occurrence.

Admittedly, according to the prosecution, Ex.P.1 - Complaint was made by P.W.1 to the police only at 17.00 hours (5.00 p.m.) on

20.10.1993. Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant - accused would contend that there is a delay of 12 hours in complaining the

incident to the police. According to the counsel, though the deceased died at 9.30 a.m., Outpost Police Station is available within the Hospital

campus and even the concerned Police Station lies within 4 furlongs from the place of occurrence, the complaint was made only at 5.00 p.m.

Further, according to him, the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint Ex.P.1 has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses and on this

ground the entire prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved. As rightly argued, the unexplained delay gives rise to suspicion in the case of

prosecution. Though P.W.1 has claimed that after the death of the injured at 9.30 a.m., he went and searched their Headman (Nattamai) between

10 and 10.30 a.m., both the Headman and the Assistant Headman, were not in their house and he went and made a complaint to the West Police

Station between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. Admittedly, the prosecution has not examined anyone of the Headmen with reference to the

statement made by P.W.1 that they were not available at the relevant time. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions

Judge. Accordingly, we hold that the inordinate delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution and sustain the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

The another circumstance, which goes against the prosecution is that though P.W.3-one Babu, took the injured to the hospital and stayed

therein till her death at 9.30 a.m., he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The fact that P.W.3, took the injured to the

hospital was spoken to by P.W.6 Doctor. P.W.6 in his evidence had referred only to the name of P.W.3, who took the injured to the hospital for

treatment and has not mentioned the names of others. It is also relevant to refer that P.W.6 has stated that Babu informed him that he does not

know how the injuries were caused. It is also relevant to note the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.5 and the explanation with reference to the same in his

cross examination. He has stated that,

Alleged to have been knocked down and found lying on the road side.

The evidence of P.W.6 and the statement made in Ex.P.5 and also the fact that P.W.3, who is cited as a prosecution witness turned hostile, all go

against the case of prosecution.

Even with regard to motive, i.e., misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased, six months prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 - brother

of the deceased has admitted that there was no misunderstanding between the accused and his father-in-law. In cross-examination P.W.1 has

stated,

vd; jfg;gdhUf;Fk; vjphpf;Fk; tpnuhjk; vJt[k; fpilahJ/ vd; jfg;gdhiu vjphp tPl;ow;F te;J ghh;j;Jtpl;L nghthh;/ Mtzp khjj;jpy; vd; j'';ifia kWgoa[k;

vjphpapd; tPl;oy; bfhz;Lngha; tpl;Ltpl;nlhk;/ mjw;F gpwFk; vjphpa[k;. vd; j'';ifa[k;. re;njh&khfj;jhd; ,Ue;J te;jhh;fs;/ vjphp vd;dplnkh. vd; jha;.

jfg;gdhhplnkh vd; j'';if elj;ij rhpapy;iy vd;W brhd;djpy;iy///////

P.W.2 also reiterated,

vjphp vd;dplnkh. vd; fzthplnkh. rpj;uhtpd; elj;ij rhpapy;iy vd;W brhy;yp g[fhh; vJt[k; brhd;djpy;iy/ ////

The above statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 go against the claim of prosecution that there was a misunderstanding and the accused suspected the

character of the deceased, which resulted in the murder of the deceased.

Another important circumstance which the learned Sessions Judge failed to note and the learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued is

that the police have suppressed the earliest complaint said to have been made by P.W.1 between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon to the West Police

Station. In cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that, after knowing the death of the deceased at 9.30 a.m., in the hospital, he went in search of

their Headmen and after knowing their absence, he went to the West Police Station and made a complaint around 11.00 a.m. or 12.00 noon. In

this regard, it is relevant to refer to the statement of P.W.1 in his cross examination, which reads as under.

..... Fg;g[rhkpia (Headman) jtpu ,;d;bdhU rpd;d ehl;lhd;ika[k; v'';fs; bjUtpy; trpf;fpwhh;/ Rkhh; 10/00 my;yJ 10/30 kzpf;F ehd; njo te;jbghGJ

,uz;L ehl;lhd;ikfSk; ,y;iy vd;gij bjhpe;Jf; bfhz;nld;/ mjd; gpwF gfy; 11/00 my;yJ 12/00 kzp mstpy; nkw;F fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/

////////////////

.........ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;Jtpl;L gfy; Rkhh; 1/00 kzpf;F kUj;Jtkidf;F jpUk;gp nghdnghJ vjphp m'';F ,Ue;jhh;/ nghyPrhh; mg;bghGJ m'';F

te;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/ nghyPrhh; vd;ida[k;. vjphpiaa[k;. kw;Wk; cs;sth;fisa[k; tprhhpj;jhh;/ ////////

The above statement of P.W.1 has not been explained by the prosecution by proper evidence. There is no explanation as to what happened to the

complaint made by P.W.1 around 11.00 a.m. or 12.00 noon at West Police Station. In the absence of such explanation, as rightly argued by the

learned counsel for the appellant / accused, it is not safe to rely on the case of prosecution and we are in agreement with the argument advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant that the earlier complaint made by P.W.1 at the earliest point of time had been suppressed by the prosecution.

Yet another circumstance to be noted is that when the injured was admitted around 6.00 a.m. at Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, at that

time the accused was also present. Presence of the accused in the Hospital is spoken to by P.W.7 - Dr. G. Venkatesan, Ward Doctor attached to

Government Hospital, Thanjavur. In his cross examination, P.W.7 has stated that,

....nf!; rPl;oy; ""vd; kidtpapd; cly;epiy nkhrkhd epiyapy; ,Ug;gij kUj;Jth; K:yk; mwpe;Jbfhz;nld;"". vd;W vGjp ,g;gof;F Mh;/ uh$% vd;W ifbaGj;J

,lg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mnjnghy; nf!; rPl;oy; ""vd; kidtp ,we;Jnghdij kUj;Jth; K:yk; mwpntd;"" vd;W vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ fhiy 9/05 kzpf;F vGjp th'';fg;gl;ljhf

Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;Twpa thrf'';fs; vGjg;gl;l ,we;j rpj;uhtpd; kUj;Jt gjpntL v/rh/M/1 MFk;/ (Ex.R.1)

The above statement of P.W.7 shows that prior to the death of deceased, the accused was in hospital and there is a specific reference regarding

his presence in A.R. Copy - Ex.R.1. Here again, as rightly argued, if the accused had really caused cut injuries, it is highly improbable that he

would have been present in the hospital till her death i.e., upto 9.30 a.m. There is no explanation with regard to the evidence of P.W.7 and the

statement made in Ex.R.1, establish the presence of accused in the hospital till her death.

In the light of the above infirmities, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to refer to the evidence of post-mortem Doctor - P.W.8,

Investigating Officer - P.W.11, Post-mortem Certificate - Ex.P.2, Inquest Report - Ex.P.12, the recovery of Material Objects 1 and 2 etc. As a

matter of fact, admittedly, as per the report of Forensic Science Department, which has been marked as Ex.P.9, M.O.1 - Aruval does not contain

bloodstains. We are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered all the above material infirmities, committed an error in accepting

the case of prosecution and convicting the accused.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant / accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur made

in S.C.No.36 of 1995 is set aside. The appellant - accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. It is reported that the appellant is on

bail and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.