Sakthivel vs State, by Inspector of Police

A.K. Rajan, J.—Sakthivel, the appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging the conviction under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and

sentence to undergo life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 380 I.P.C.

The appellant was residing in Ramanathapuram village in Eriodu Taluk in the adjacent house to that of the deceased Kanagavalli. P.W.1 Vijaya,

Kanagavalli''s daughter, is living in Trichy. Kanagavalli'' s son by name Gopinath, was blind; also he could not move. P.W. 2 Rajeswari and P.W.3

Seethammal were the adjacent house owners. P.W.5 is the relative of the accused and she is also a neighbour. On 18.11.1998, at about 11.30

a.m., P.W.1 received a telephone call from P.W.6 Sundararaj informing that Kanagavalli died. Immediately, P.W.1 came to the village at 4.30

p.m. and found that the deceased was kept in a sitting posture on a chair. P.W.7 daughter of P.W.1 also came to the village and they were waiting

for the arrival of the husband of P.W.1. He came on the next day, viz., on 19.11.1998 and after his arrival, they wanted to bury the body and

therefore, they started performing the last rites in the house. In that process of washing the body, P.Ws.1 and 7 found injuries on the neck of the

deceased as well as on the hands and some other parts of the body. Therefore, they grew suspicious on the cause of the death of the deceased

and therefore, immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station at 3.00 p.m. on 19.11.1998 and gave Ex.P.1 complaint, to P.W.12 Inspector of

Police. He registered a case u/s 174 Cr.P.C. as ""suspicious death"" and prepared Ex.P.8 first information report. Thereafter, P.W.12 went to the

scene of occurrence at 4.00 p.m. on the same day and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.9 rough sketch. P.W.12 conducted inquest

over the body of the deceased and Ex.P.10 is the inquest report.

P.W.10 the Doctor who conducted post-mortem found six injuries on the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to

have died of asphyxia due to throttling; Ex.P.6 is the post-mortem certificate. After the post-mortem, P.W.12 Inspector of Police altered the case

into 302 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7. While so, on 24.11.1998, the accused went to P.W.9 Village

Administrative Officer and gave Ex.P.3, extra-judicial confession which was reduced to writing; the accused also produced M.O.1 gold bangles,

M.O.2 gold chain and M.O.2 cash of Rs. 2,400/-. P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer took the accused along with the material objects to

P.W.12 Inspector of Police. P.Ws.1 and 7 identified M.Os.1 to 3 as that of the deceased; P.W.12 arrested the accused and seized the materials

objects. After completing the investigation, P.W.12 filed the charge-sheet.

The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. To prove the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12, marked

Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 5.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of charges under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced

him to undergo life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Against the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been

filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S. Senthilnathan submitted that Ex.P.3 extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence, because when

the accused said to have given confession, investigation has already commenced; therefore, recording of evidence by the Village Administrative

Officer is hit by Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. When the extra-judicial confession is inadmissible, the recovery also is inadmissible.

Further, P.Ws.1 and 3 would admit that on 19.3.1998, they saw the accused in the custody of the police. Therefore, the evidence regarding the

arrest of the accused is also falsified. For these reasons, the counsel for the appellant submitted, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable

and he is entitled for acquittal.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that even though investigation has already commenced and subsequent to that, the extra-

judicial confession was recorded by a Village Administrative Officer, that does not become inadmissible in evidence and in support of that, he cited

a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Valanjiya Chinnammal v. State 1987 LW (Cri) 375.

We gave our careful consideration for the rival contentions of the counsel for the accused as well as the Public Prosecutor. We are unable to

accept the argument of the Additional learned counsel for the appellant for the following reasons:

P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly stated in their evidence that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.2 saw both the accused and P.W.5 in the

house of the deceased and P.W.3 saw the accused while he was coming out of the house of the deceased and when she enquired about

Kanagavalli, the accused replied that the deceased was lying in sofa. This evidence has not been challenged in the cross-examination. P.W.5 has

stated that he along with the accused were in the house of the deceased and the deceased gave pongal to P.W.5 and after eating that, he left the

house.

A combined reading of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 would prove that it is the accused who was last seen with the deceased while she was alive. Within a

short time thereafter, P.W.2 came to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying on the sofa and immediately, she called P.Ws.3 and

4 and others and they found that Kanagavalli was dead. Thereafter, they informed P.W.6 who sent the message to P.W.1. From this, it is proved

that it is the accused who was in the company of the deceased at the time of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 7 found the jewels missing only the next day

and only thereafter, they gave a statement regarding the missing of the jewels. On enquiry, P.W.12 Inspector of Police entertained suspicion

against the accused Sakthivel and though he searched for the accused, he could not get him, but on 24.11.1998, he came to know that the

accused appeared before the P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer and gave a confession and also produced M.Os.1 to 2 jewels and M.O.3

cash. M.Os.1 and 2 were identified by P.Ws.1 and 7 as that of the jewels worn by the deceased and P.W.7 also identified M.O.3 cash of Rs.

2,400/- as that given by her to the deceased one week prior to the date of death. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. In Valanjiya

Chinnammal v. State 1987 LW (Cri) 375 where this Court followed an earlier decision in Sankayyan alias Sengodan, In re, Criminal Appeal No.

640 of 1980 , it was observed as follows:

On a careful examination of R.72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, it is not possible to state a confessional statement recorded by a Village

Magistrate after investigation has begun is illegal or inadmissible in evidence, though the weight to be attached to the same may be a relevant

question for consideration on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Therefore, the extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.9, though was subsequent to the beginning of investigation is not inadmissible

in evidence, only its evidentiary value is reduced. Therefore, Ex.P.3 is admissible in evidence.

On a perusal of Ex.P.3 extra-judicial confession, it is seen that minute details had been given by the accused which were only to the exclusive

knowledge of the accused; it cannot be said that the same would have been written by the Village Administrative Officer himself. Therefore, it

proves that the confession was true and voluntary. This also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 in other aspects. The evidence of

P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 together with Ex.P.3 and the recovery of jewels from the accused, proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who

had committed the murder of Kanagavalli and after murdering her, he had removed the jewels from her body.

Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial Court has also come to the correct conclusion and found the charges proved. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the

trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused.