Easwari vs State

Arunachalam, J.—By our judgment dated 31.7.1991 we set aside the conviction of the appellant and directed her acquittal. We then

observed, that the reasons which impelled us to acquit the appellant, would follow in due course. We further stated that the detailed judgment

would include the nature of action, if any, to be taken, against P.W.13 Gopal, the then Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam who prime facie appears

to have intentionally given false evidence and, or fabricated such evidence in the course of the Judicial proceedings.

Here are our reasons for the decision arrived at on 31.7.1991.

Facts in this prosecution:- Appellant Eswari is the wife of P.W.1 Ramasamy. The appellant was living along with her husband at Ramiahgoundan

Puthur. Deceased Rajammal was the younger sister of P.W.1. P.W.2 Bathrammal is the mother of P.W.1. She was blind. Deceased Rajammal

was residing along with the appellant P.W.1 and P.W.2 at Ramaiah goundan Puthur. Deceased Rajammal was married. P.W.1 was working at

Tiruchirapally as a cook in the Guest House attached to Ramakrishnan Oil Company. The Appellant used to work as a labourer in construction of

buildings. Deceased used to do gardening and earn wages therefor. The family members of P.W.1 were eking out their livelihood on the earnings

of P.W.1 the deceased and the appellant.

About a month prior to occurrence, P.W.1 requested the appellant to part with her jewellery to facilitate matrimony of the deceased. P.W.1

also told his wife (Appellant) that the house property in the name of his parents, should be settled in favour of the deceased. The appellant not only

refused to part with her jewellery, but also protested against the intended settlement of the ancestral property of her husband in favour of the

deceased. However, P.W.1 left the village after informing the appellant, that within 2 months thereafter, the marriage of the deceased had to be

performed.

While so, on 17.12.1983, the deceased left her house, after informing her mother P.W.2 that she was proceeding, to pick up firewood. The

exact time when the deceased left her house is not clear from the evidence, though the charge reads that the deceased was murdered at or about

5.30 a.m., on 17.12.1983. After the deceased left her house, the appellant also left the house stating that she was proceeding to wash clothes.

Sometime later the appellant returned and told P.W.2 that sufficient flow of water was not available in their riverbed. The appellant carried on

washing activity in the backyard of the house. She did not go for her masonry work on 17.12.1983. On the same night around 7.30 p.m., Dr. Kala

Shree, (not examined) informed P.W.1 over the phone, that the deceased who had gone over to the riverbed to wash clothes, had been washed

ashore, by the river waters. P.W.1 received the telephonic message at Tiruchirapalli and reached his village at 7 a.m. on 18.12.1983. P.W.1

questioned his wife. His father also left the house on the morning of 18.12.1983, after quarrelling with the appellant. The appellant told P.W.1 that

on information of a corpse having been washed ashore in the riverbed, she went and saw the dead body. P.W.1 proceeded to the riverbed. He

found his younger sister, the deceased with cut injuries. The body of the deceased was found naked. Jewellery on her ears and nose were found

removed. Thereafter P.W.1 proceeded to the Mettupalayam Police Station and preferred the complaint, Ex.P.1., before P.W.12 Govindaraj, the

then Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P.1 which was received by him at or about 10.30 a.m., on 18.12.1983 was registered as crime No. 358 of

1983, u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, by P.W.12. Ex.P.11 is the printed first information report. He forwarded copies of Ex.P.11 to court and his

superior officers. He also informed P.W.13, the Inspector of Police about the registration of this crime. P.W.13, Gopal, Inspector of Police,

Mettupalayam on receipt of, the telephonic message from P.W.12, obtained a copy of Ex.P.11 and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at or

about 11 a.m. At the scene he prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.12 and the scene sketch Ex.P.13. Between 11 a.m., and 2 p.m., he

conducted the inquest over the corpse of Rajammal, during the course of which he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. After

inquest he forwarded the dead body through police constable Manickam (P.W.8) with a requisition Ex.P.2 to the Government Hospital

Mettupalayam, for the conduct of post mortem.

P.W.7 Dr. Hariharan commenced autopsy on the dead body at or about 3.30 p.m., on 18.12.1983. He found the following injuries:

Injuries (1) incised wound over the head about 1"" to the right of midline about 6"" in length cutting the bone and the brain tissue in A.P. direction.

Another incised wound 1 cm lateral to injury No. 1 cutting the bone and brain 6"" in length in the antcaposter in direction.

Incised wound starting from the angle of left eye extending posteriorly, downwards and backwards upto the midline of neck in the back. The left

ear was found missing. The mastoid process was found cut.

Incised wound starting 1 cm below the injury No.3. The wound starts about 1 cm below the injury No. 3 in similar manner, and ends at the

midline to back of neck cutting all the deeper tissues upto the bone.

Incised Injury.

Incised Injury 1 cm. below the injury No. 5 in the similar manner.

Incised injury over the left side of face at the level of angle of mandible directed downwards and backwards to the midline of back of neck. The

deeper tissues are cut. Through the wounds 3 to 7 I have found the following things:-The anterior occipital joint was found cut and the spinal cord

was found partially cut. The brain matter was found protruding through the wound;

Circular lacerated wound over the right elbow skin deep.

Lacerated wound on the back of right forearm.

Internally uterus and ovaries were normal. The bladder was empty. Two fractures were found on the frontal bone of skull, each 5"" in length, in the

anterior posterior direction. The 1st fracture was 1"" from the mid line, on right side and the 2nd fracture 1/2"" lateral to the 1st fracture. There was a

fracture over the base of skull, on the left side 1"" lateral to the margin. Membranes, were injured corresponding to the fractures. The spinal cord

was found partially cut, below atlanto occipital joint. Ex.P.3 is the postmortem certificate. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear

to have died of injury to brain, injury to spinal cord and the multiple cut injuries over the left side of back and neck. The injuries noticed on the

deceased could have been caused by an aruval. The death would have been instantaneous. Injuries 1 and 2 were necessarily fatal.

P.W.13 arrested the appellant at or about 8 a.m. on 21.12.1983, near Kalanithi garden at Ramiagoundan Pudur in the presence of P.W.10.

The appellant volunteered a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.7. In pursuance of her statement, she agreed to produce the aruval

M.O.6 and the sari M.O.7, which she had worn at the time of occurrence. The appellant took P.W.13 and his party to her house and produced

M.Os. 6 and 7 from Attikalai ( ) which were seized under mahazar Ex.P.8. The appellant also thereafter pointed out P.W.5 a jeweller at

Mettupalayam. P.W.13 and his party reached the shop of P.W.5 at or about 11.30 a.m. P.W.5 produced M.O.1 series which were seized under

a mahazar Ex.P.9 attested by P.W.10. On being pointed out by the appellant P.W.6 Ramathal of Ramaiahgoundan Pudur, was discovered. She

produced M.O.3 which had been entrusted to her by the appellant on the date of occurrence, along with Rs. 800/- in cash. M.O.3 was seized

under a mahazar Ex.P.10. Attested by P.W.11. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant after committing the murder, proceeded to

Mettupalayam, sold away M.O.1 series to P.W.5 at or about 2 p.m., and purchased from him M.O.3 series, a new set of earrings after paying a

su of Rs. 150/- over and above the value of M.O.1 series. After return from Mettupalayam, the appellant is stated to have handed over M.O.3

series and Rs. 800/- in cash for safe custody to P.W.6. The next day the appellant took away the cash while requesting P.W.6 to retain M.O.3

series.

The prosecution has also examined, P.W.3, Rengasamy, who has garden land at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. The appellant at or about the time of

occurrence was working in his garden land. The appellant approached P.W.3 about a year prior to his deposition in court and told him that the

deceased was found dead in the river bed and requested him to give her Rs. 500/- towards cremation expenses. She also told him, that a telegram

had to be sent to her husband, who was then at Tiruchirapalli. The money borrowed was later returned by the appellant. P.W.3 would further

depose, that the appellant requested him to inform the police that she had attended work on Saturday. P.W.2 refused to accede to this request,

since she had not come for work on that day. The appellant requested him to save her, since she may be apprehended in respect of the death of

deceased Rajammal.

P.W.4 Santhiseelan, an employee at Rajalakshmi Mills, has spoken of an extrajudicial confession, made to him, by the appellant, two days

subsequent to the occurrence. At or about 7 p.m., the appellant is stated to have informed him, that she had murdered the deceased. P.W.4

advised her to surrender before the Police. The appellant had also told P.W.4 about a week earlier, that P.W.1 was desirous of getting Rajammal

married by utilising her jewellery and setting the house property.

P.W.13 sent a requisition to the trial Magistrate to forward the material objects seized for chemical analysis, to the Laboratory. P.W.9

Kaliaperumal the court clerk proved Ex.P.6 the report of the chemical Examiner. Ex.P.6 discloses that there was no blood on either of M.Os. 6

and 7 (the aruval and sari). After