Ramanathan vs State by Inspector of Police

M. Chockalingam, J.—This Appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Thanjavur District dated 30.4.2008 made in S.C. No. 214 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

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

(i) The accused/appellant along with his wife, Umarani, was living in "Vannarapettai" within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. The occurrence had taken place on 7.4.2007 in the night hours when he came in a drunken mood and when he asked his wife, the victim, why she did not tie the bull, for which, she replied that she could not tie since she did not feel well and immediately, he took a kerosene can, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and she raised a distressing call and the same was witnessed by P Ws.1 to 4 and PW.6. Then, immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur and admitted in the Hospital and the Accident Register copy was marked as Ex.P.24.

(ii) On receipt of the intimation, PW.12, Sub-Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station went over to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur, and recorded the statement of the victim, which was marked as Ex.P.14 and on the strength of which he registered a case in Crime No. 79/2007 u/s 307 IPC. Express F.I.R., Ex.P.15 was despatched to the Court.

(iii) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, the Inspector of Police, PW.13, took up investigation and proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.1 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.16 and he also recovered a Plastic Can MO.5 along with other objects which were worn by the victim at the time of occurrence.

(iv) On intimation from the Government Hospital, PW.7 - Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur, rushed to the Hospital and after getting opinion of the Doctor PW.8 that the victim was in a fit state of mind to give Dying Declaration, recorded the statement and the same was marked as Ex.P.5 and the Doctor also issued a Certificate to that effect, which was marked as Ex.P.6.

(v) Despite the treatment, the victim died. On receipt of the intimation, the case was converted into one u/s 302 IPC and further investigation was done.

(vi) On the request of Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.9, who gave Ex.P.10 Post-Mortem Certificate wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the effects and complications of extensive burns.

(vii) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested and he gave a confessional statement on 9.4.2007 and the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.18, recorded in the presence of witnesses and then, he was sent for judicial remand.

(viii) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charge was framed against the accused.

In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 24 Exhibits and 11 M Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of the accused. Neither defence witness was examined nor document was marked on the side of the defence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available on record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts in respect of the charge of murder and found the accused guilty of the charge of murder.

Advancing the arguments on behalf of the accused/appellant, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that-

(i) in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it mainly relied on the Dying Declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to PW.7, Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur. It is pertinent to point out that P Ws.1 to 4 and PW.6 have turned hostile.

(ii) The incident took place on 7.4.2007 and she was taken to the Hospital at 9.45 p.m., and she was admitted by Doctor PW.8. Ex.P.24 Accident Register Copy would clearly indicate that it was an act of self-immolation and not the act committed by the accused/appellant and actually, the victim died only on 11.4.2007 and that there was 4 intervening days.

(iii) Doctor PW.9, who conducted PostMortem, has clearly opined that it was due to the effects and complications of extensive burns the victim died and thus, it would clearly indicate that it was not the act of the accused nor the injuries sustained by her.

(iv) under the circumstances, all these documents are taken into account, the Dying Declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, PW.7, cannot but has to be rejected. Even PW.4, the mother of the deceased, has categorically stated that the deceased and the appellant were actually happily living together and on no one occasion, she returned to her parental home and under the circumstances, there was no need for the accused/appellant to commit such an act and this could indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and rendered the judgment against the accused/appellant.

The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also scrutinised the materials available.

It is not in controversy that one Uma Rani, wife of the accused/appellant, following the incident that took place on 7.4.2007, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur and despite the treatment she died on 11.4.2007. It was clearly recorded by the Doctor PW.7 that the deceased would appear to have died due to the effects and complications of extensive burns. The fact of the death as put-forth by the prosecution was never disputed before the trial Court or before this Court and hence, there is no impediment for the Court in recording so.

One contention put-forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that she was actually taken to the Hospital at 9.45 p.m., on 7.4.2007 but the Doctor PW.8, who admitted her was not examined and even the contents of A.R. Copy Ex.P.24 would clearly show that it was an act of self-immolation.

The Court is unable to agree with this contention. Even the contents of Ex.P.24 would clearly indicate that it was not a statement made by her but the statement made by others, who actually took her to the Government Hospital. Apart from that, non-examination of the Doctor PW.8, who admitted the deceased cannot be vital in the factual matrix of the case of the prosecution. It was the victim who gave the statement to the respondent police and on the very next day, on the strength of which, the case was registered. It is true that the incident was taken place at 7.45 p.m., on 7.4.2007. It is true that the police officer went to the Government Hospital and recorded her statement in the night hours on 8.4.2007 and that by itself cannot be the reason to doubt the prosecution case. Even in the statement given by her, it has been clearly stated that it was her husband who poured kerosene and set her ablaze.

Apart from that, on intimation, the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur - PW.7 went to the Government Hospital and recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased when she was found to be in a fit frame of mind. The very reading of the Dying Declaration would clearly reveal that her husband came in a drunken mood and asked as to why she did not tie the bull, for which replied that she could not do it as she was not feeling well and immediately, he took kerosene, poured on her and set her ablaze. The statement given by the deceased to the police officer and Dying Declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate PW.7 would clearly indicate that it was the accused/appellant who committed the crime.

Now the contention put-forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that medical opinion canvassed in the Post-Mortem certificate is in favour of the accused/appellant cannot be countenanced. PW.9 conducted Post-Mortem and issued Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.10, which reads as follows:

Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died due to the effects and complications of extensive burns.

Thus, it would be quite clear that the deceased died due to the effects and complications of extensive burns. In the instant case, there is nothing to assail the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

Insofar as Dying Declaration is concerned, in a given case like this where the prosecution has strong material viz., Dying Declaration and if it has got to be accepted by the Court, that itself would be sufficient to sustain the conviction. In the instant case, the Court is satisfied that the Dying Declaration given by the deceased and recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur - PW.7 would suffice to sustain the conviction and other attendant circumstances are also pointing to the same. Hence, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, will not affect the truth of the prosecution case. Hence, the trial Judge is perfectly correct in finding the accused/appellant guilty as per the charge of murder and awarding life imprisonment and fine.

Under the circumstances, in the considered opinion of the Court, the judgment of the trial Court shall not be disturbed and accordingly, it is affirmed. The Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.