AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Coimbatore, made in S.C. No. 35 of 2009 whereby the
sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 10000/- and default sentence on the first charge and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and default sentence on
the second charge.
Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.7 is the husband of the deceased Santhya. P.W.12 is the elder brother of P.W.7, and the deceased Santhya was the cousin sister of the
wife of P.W.12. With the consent of both the families, the marriage of P.W.7 and Santhya took place 10 years prior to the occurrence. P.W.7
was employed at Cunnoor. He used to leave his wife Santhya in their residence at Gandhi Nagar. P.W.9 was also employed along with P.W.7 at
Cunnoor. When P.W.4 was undergoing custody in connection with a case registered by Tiruppur North Police Station, the accused was also
brought to the Sub Jail, Tiruppur, and they became acquainted. P.W.10, the wife of one Vasu, and the deceased Santhya were residing in nearby
houses. After P.W.7 left for his work, Santhya used to visit the house of P.W.10 often and spend time with her. P.W.10 and her husband used to
often quarrel since one was suspecting the conduct of the other. Hence P.W.10 left the house, went to Tiruppur and employed in a banian
Company. On knowing about the same, Santhya also left her residence at Gandhi Nagar and also got employment in the very same company
where P.W.10 was employed. P.W.10 developed intimacy with Ramesh, and they got married and were living as husband and wife.
(b) P.W.7 gave a complaint to Oveli Police Station that his wife Santhya was missing. After a month''s time, she was secured and brought. But
Santhya gave a statement that she did not want to go with the husband and the children. Thereafter, she took one of the row houses belonging to
P.W.15 at Perumanallur and was living with P.W.4 for 7 or 8 months. They were living as husband and wife. During that time, the accused used to
come there and thereby developed intimacy with her. On one day, she left the company of P.W.4 and joined the company of the accused who
was carrying on flesh trade. While Santhya was staying with the accused, she was being used for that trade, and so many persons used to attend
her on every day. They were staying in a house situated in Door No. 10, Sivasubramani Colony, Valayankadu, Tiruppur. While she was staying
with him, Santhya went with another pimp by name Moorthy examined as P.W.11. On coming to know about her escape, the accused took all
steps to secure her from him so that he could continue the said business by using her. But the deceased did not want to do the same under the
accused, but she wanted to go with P.W.4 Ramesh. Under the circumstances, the accused entertained fear whether he would be finished off by
Ramesh.
(c) On intimation by P.W.20, P.W.19 went to Tiruppur on 7.11.2006, and he stayed with the deceased and spent that night. The accused locked
outside facilitating their uninterrupted stay. Next morning, the accused opened the door, and immediately P.W.19 left for Coimbatore. The accused
and the deceased stayed in the same place on that day. P.W.20 went to the house of the accused on 8.11.2006, when he found both the accused
and Santhya quarrelling with each other. At that time, Santhya asked the accused that she should be handed over to Ramesh. P.W.20 after
pacifying the situation, left the place.
(d) On 9.11.2006 at about 03.00 hours, the accused strangulated her using a nylon rope, M.O.24, in the house at door No. 10, Sivasubramani
Colony, Valayankadu, Tiruppur, and later took her dead body in his M.O.23, maruti car, bearing registration No. TN 09 J 6292. At about 4.00
or 4.30 A.M., P.W.21 was standing in front of the bus stop called Kamatchiamman Koil at Tiruppur in order to board a bus to Coimbatore. At
that time, he found M.O.23, maruti car, parked nearby. On seeing P.W.21, the accused released the door glass and sought the help of P.W.21
stating that the car did not start due to mechanical defect. At that time, P.W.21 witnessed Santhya lying on the back seat. The accused told
P.W.21 that Santhya was to be taken to the hospital at Coimbatore since she was suffering. At that time, P.W.23 who came in a motorbike, also
parked the vehicle and joined with P.W.21 in pushing the car. P.W.21 was under the impression that if the car took a start, he could also join and
go to Coimbatore. Within a few minutes, the car started. But, the accused without stopping the vehicle, proceeded hastily. Again when the car was
in its way towards Coimbatore, P.W.24, when he was taking tea near Rajathani Bakery, M.O.23, Car, driven by the accused, was stopped
behind a lorry. P.W.24 went nearby and asked the accused. But the accused informed him that he was to go immediately since he was under
urgent work. P.W.24 saw the deceased lying on the back seat. The accused proceeded in the said maruthi car with the dead body of Santhya in
the Avinasi to Cheyyur Road and crushed her by running his car over the head of the deceased in order to appear as if she died out of a road
accident. Then the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
(e) On 9.11.2006 at about 9.00 A.M., P.W.1 whose farm house is situated in Kuttaikadu on the eastern side of Cheyyur Road woke up at about
4.00 A.M., and after collecting the milk at about 5.00 A.M., he noticed just opposite to his house, a white colour Car about to start with its engine
sound roaring, and nobody was seen outside the car. He observed something like dried banana leaves in front of the car. Since it was heavily
raining, he could not observe it closely. When he returned after selling the milk at about 7.00 A.M., he saw a female dead body lying on the
roadside with severe injuries on the head. He gave Ex.P17, the complaint, to P.W.28, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Veyur Police
Station, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 150/2006 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. The printed FIR, Ex.P18, was
despatched to the Court.
(f) P.W.31, the Inspector of Police, Avinasi Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, and at about 10.30 A.M., he
proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P23, in the
presence of P.W.3, the Village Administrative Officer. Then the dead body was photographed through P.W.14, the photographer. The photos
were marked as M.Os.11 to 16, and its negatives were M.Os.17 to 22. The Investigator recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and
other material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 10, under Ex.P3, mahazar. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses
and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P24. The dead body was taken to the Government Hospital and kept in cold storage. On
15.11.2006, the publications were made in newspapers. P.W.4 and the mother of the deceased identified the dead body as that of Santhya.
(g) The dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.30, the District Police Surgeon & Professor, Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical
College & Hospital, and issued Ex.P19, the postmortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of
asphyxia due to violent ligature compression of the neck.
(h) The case was altered to Section 302 of IPC. The amended FIR Ex.P25 was despatched to the Court. Pending investigation, the accused
surrendered before P.W.5, the husband of the Panchayat President, on 15.12.2006, and in the presence of P.W.13, he gave an extra-judicial
confession. The signature of P.W.5 is marked as Ex.P4, and that of P.W.13 is Ex.P7, and the accused was produced before the Investigating
Officer to whom he gave a confessional statement. Pursuant to the said confession, he produced M.O.23, car, M.O.24, nylon rope, M.O.25,
knife, and M.O.26, foot mat. They were all recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand.
(i) In the meantime, the mother of Santhya made Crl.O.P. No. 5364/2007 before this Court for transfer of investigation. By an order dated
12.7.2007, this Court transferred the investigation from P.W.31 to the CB CID. Thereafter, P.W.32, the Inspector of Police, attached to CB
CID, took up investigation and proceeded to the spot. He also verified the statements of P.Ws.1 to 29. He examined P.Ws.19 to 24 and
recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, he filed the final report against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the
appellant/accused, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and also relied on 31 exhibits and 26 material objects. On completion of the evidence
on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1, and two documents were
marked as Exs.D1 and D2. One Court document was marked as Ex.C1. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took
the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded the above punishment. Hence
this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this Court.
Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct
evidence to offer, and it relied upon the circumstantial evidence; but it has miserably failed either to place or prove the necessary circumstances
pointing to the guilt of the accused; that according to the prosecution, the deceased Santhya was originally given in marriage to P.W.7, and
thereafter, she was moving in the company of P.W.4, a pimp, and then deserting him, she joined the company of the accused/appellant; that the
motive attributed for the crime was that the accused was aggrieved over the act of the deceased deserting him and joining the company of P.W.4,
and even after she was rescued again, she was insisting that she would join the company of P.W.4, and hence he wanted to finished her off; but
this motive was not spoken to by any one of the witnesses; that the prosecution much relied on the last seen theory spoken to by P.Ws.19, 20, 21
and 23; that they were all friends of P.W.4; that according to P.W.19, on the request of P.W.20, he went to Tiruppur and was staying with the
deceased on 7.11.2006 night, and the stay was facilitated by the accused by locking the door outside, and next morning he opened the door; that
according to P.W.20, he visited the house of the accused on 8.11.2006, when he found the accused and the deceased quarrellilng with each other;
that according to P.W.21, he was waiting at the bus stop to board a bus to Coimbatore, and at that time, M.O.23 maruthi car was parked nearby,
and he went nearby, and on seeing him, the accused informed him that the car was under some mechanical defect, and he sought his help to push
the car, and in that process, P.W.23 who was on his way in his bike, also joined P.W.21 in pushing the car; that according to P.Ws.21 and 23,
they saw the deceased lying on the back seat of the car; that P.W.24 has equally deposed that he also saw the car stopped behind a lorry, and
when he went nearby, the accused told him that he was to go for an urgent work, and then he took the car hastily, and P.W.24 witnessed the
deceased lying on the back seat; that the Investigator would claim that the statements of P.Ws.19 and 21 were recorded on 23.8.2007; that the
statement of P.W.23 was recorded on 4.11.2007, and that of P.W.24 was on 10.11.2007; that all these statements reached the Court only on
1.8.2008; that if really their statements were recorded on those dates, there was no reason whey they were sent to the Court belatedly; that the
prosecution had no explanation to offer; that even on 15.11.2006, itself along with the photograph, sufficient publicity was made; that in such
circumstances, one would naturally expect these witnesses not to keep silence, but to speak about the information they passed on subsequently,
but they have not done so; that the silence on the part of these witnesses would also go to show that they were all witnesses subsequently
introduced to fill up the case, and hence the last seen theory should not have been believed by the trial Court.
Added further the learned Counsel that according to P.Ws.4 and 11, themselves and the mother of the deceased appeared before the
Investigator on 15.11.2006 itself, but the Investigating Officer has stated that they were examined only on 19.12.2006; that even in the inquest
report prepared on the very day of occurrence, and also in the altered report dated 25.11.2003, the assailants were shown as unknown persons;
that it would be quite clear that at the time of inquest or the alteration of the case, the assailant could not be fixed by the Investigator; that if really
P.Ws.4 and 11 and the mother of the deceased were intimated on 15.11.2006 itself, there was not even any suspicion over the accused; that the
prosecution had relied on the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made to P.W.5; but P.W.5 has turned hostile; that the confession
alleged to have been recorded was not placed before the Court; but P.W.13 was examined to the effect that he was also present when the
accused made the extra-judicial confession to P.W.5 about the commission of the offence; that the accused was actually under illegal custody of
the respondent police from 13.11.2006 onwards; that the mother of the accused sent a telegraphic message as found in Ex.D2, about the illegal
custody, and hence the claim made by P.W.13 as if he as present when the accused gave the extra-judicial confession to P.W.15 cannot but be
false; that when P.W.5, to whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made, has turned hostile and it was not even marked before the Court,
no evidentiary value could be attached to the evidence of P.W.13; that apart from that, the non-examination of the mother of the deceased was
fatal to the prosecution case; that P.W.1, who, according to the prosecution, saw the white maruti car where from the dead body was dropped,
has turned hostile; that it is well admitted by the Investigator that the mother of the deceased has made a statement to the effect that she came to
know that her daughter died out of road accident; that admittedly, the deceased was an immoral traffic offender; that number of witnesses have
been examined who were stating so; that since she was indulging in the trade, she had number of enemies; that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove all or any of the circumstances which it relied, but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence the judgment of the trial Court
has got to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions
made.
It is not in controversy that after the registration of the case by P.W.28, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.31,
the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, and made an inspection, and after the conduct of the inquest, the dead body
was sent for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.30, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, after noting the external injuries and internal injuries found on
the dead body, has given his opinion in Ex.P19, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to violent
ligature compression of the neck. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that it was a case of road accident, and death
was not due to homicidal violence cannot be countenanced in view of the evidence adduced through the postmortem Doctor, P.W.30, and the
contents of the postmortem certificate. All the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate, would make it evident that the death should have been
caused by homicidal violence, and hence the contention that the death had occurred due to accident has got to be rejected, and accordingly it is
rejected.
In order to substantiate the charges of murder and screening of evidence, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon the
circumstantial evidence. It is not this Court is unmindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law and also by the Apex Court that in a
given case where the prosecution rests its case exclusively on the circumstantial evidence, it must place and prove the circumstances making a
chain, and that too without a snap, and those circumstances must be pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused no one could have
committed the offence. Admittedly, from the evidence of P.W.7, it would be quite clear that he married the deceased Santhya and was living with
her for quite some time, and deserting him, she was staying with P.W.10 at Tiruppur and employed in a banian company. From the evidence of
P.W.10, it could be seen that she developed intimacy with P.W.4 who was a pimp by profession, and he was also utilizing her for that purpose.
For sometime, they were living as husband and wife in the house of P.W.15. According to P.W.4, when he was in custody in connection with a
case registered by Tiruppur Town PS, the accused was taken to the Sub Jail Tiruppur, and there they became acquainted. During his visit to
P.W.4''s house, the accused developed intimacy with the deceased and took her away. The accused who was a pimp by profession, was utilizing
her for that purpose and earning a lot. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses who have categorically spoken to the fact that on
invitation of either P.W.4 or the accused, they visited the respective places and stayed with the deceased. Thus from the evidence of P.W.4, it
would be quite clear that the deceased Santhya who deserted her company with the husband, joined and lived with him for sometime, and
thereafter, she slipped his company and joined the appellant/accused and was also indulging in that flesh trade. Thus from the evidence of P.W.20,
it would be quite clear that he visited Door No. 10, Sivasubramani Colony, where the accused and the deceased were staying during the relevant
time. He has also witnessed the wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased where the deceased was stating that she should be
handed over to P.W.4 to which course, the accused was not amenable, and hence the accused who separated the deceased from the company of
P.W.4, wanted to retain her for his business purposes. He also got aggrieved with her intention to leave his company and join P.W.4 again. It
would be quite clear from the above evidence that the prosecution has brought forth the motive which impelled the accused to finish her off.
From the available materials, the following circumstances are noticed by the Court pointing to the guilt of the accused:
(i) P.W.19 on the intimation of P.W.20, went to the house of the accused and stayed with the deceased on 7.11.2006. His stay was facilitated by
the accused by locking the door outside. Next morning, the accused opened the door, and P.W.19 left the premises.
(ii) On 8.11.2006, P.W.20 visited the accused when he witnessed the wordy altercation between the deceased and the accused, and after
pacifying them, he left the premises.
(iii) Next morning i.e., on 9.11.2006 at about 4.30 A.M., P.W.21 when he was standing at the bus stop to board a bus to Coimbatore, found
M.O.23, maruthi car belonging to the accused stopped. On seeing this, P.W.21 went nearby and questioned the accused who replied that the car
did not start due to mechanical defect, and he sought his help to push the car. At that time, P.W.21 saw the deceased lying on the back seat. He
has categorically spoken to the fact that there was a mercury lamp by the side where the car was stopped. At that time, P.W.23 who came in his
motorbike, also stopped and assisted P.W.21 in pushing the car. He also witnessed the deceased Santhya lying on the back seat. At this juncture,
it is pertinent to point out that both P.Ws.21 and 23 have witnessed the accused sitting in the driver seat and also the deceased lying on the back
seat.
(iv) P.W.21 did not entertain any suspicion since the appellant/accused told him that Santhya was not doing well, and he was on his way to
Coimbatore.
(v) P.W.21 has further deposed that if the car took the start, he could also board the car to go to Coimbatore, but after the car started, the
accused did not stop the vehicle, but took it hastily.
(vi) Apart from the above witnesses, P.W.24 also deposed that the car was stopped behind a lorry, and he found the deceased in the back seat,
and when questioned, the accused was telling that he was going for an urgent work.
(vii) It is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 has seen the dead body within a short span of time from the time when P.Ws.21, 23 and 24 have seen
Santhya lying on the back seat.
In such circumstances, it would be quite clear that the accused who caused her death in the house, took the dead body in the car, M.O.23,
placed in the back seat and took the vehicle nearby the house of P.W.1. It is also pertinent to point out that the cause of death as put forth by the
Doctor, was asphyxia due to violent ligature compression of the neck. In order to make it appear that it was a road accident, he has driven his
Maruti car on the body and left the dead body on the roadside nearby the house of P.W.1. It is true that P.W.1 has turned hostile. It remains to be
stated that P.W.1 was not an eyewitness. But his evidence was available to the effect that the dead body was found there, and it was subsequently
identified by P.Ws.4, 7 and 11 and the mother of the deceased as that of Santhya. Thus the identity of the dead body was not questioned by the
appellant. It is true that the statements of these witnesses were recorded after sometime. Since the investigation was not properly conducted, on
the petition made by the mother of the deceased, the Investigation was transferred to CB CID. The matter was also pending in this Court for
sometime. There is no reason why those witnesses should give such statements and depose against the accused. Though they were all chance
witnesses, they have given the clear reason why they happened to be at the spot when they found the accused in the Maruti car along with the
dead body of Santhya. Thus the last seen theory, in the considered opinion of the Court, as spoken to by P.Ws.21, 23 and 24, is a strong piece of
evidence which was against the appellant/accused.
Apart from the above, the accused, according to the prosecution, appeared before P.W.5, the husband of the Village President, and gave an
extra-judicial confession. It is true that P.W.5 has turned hostile. But P.W.13 has categorically deposed that when he was with P.W.5, the accused
appeared on 15.12.2006, and gave an extra-judicial confession, and the same was recorded by P.W.5. The presence of P.W.13 at the time when
the accused appeared before P.W.5 and gave the statement, stood proved by his signature in Ex.P7 document. This Court is unable to see any
reason why the evidence of P.W.13 should be disbelieved. P.W.13 has categorically narrated the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to
P.W.5 in his presence.
It is pertinent to note that the accused was produced before the Investigator, P.W.31, on the very day, and he gave a confessional statement
pursuant to which M.O.23, car, M.O.24, nylon rope, M.O.25, knife, and M.O.26, foot mat, were all recovered. The only witness examined for
the recovery of these material objects namely P.W.22, was treated hostile. He has categorically deposed that he accompanied the
accused/appellant and also the Investigating Officer to the house of the accused at Valayankadu; that a knife, nylon rope and mat were recovered
from inside the house; that a mahazar was prepared; that he signed the mahazar; and that his signature in the mahazar is Ex.P11. The
appellant/accused has not cross-examined the above witness, and hence no impediment was felt by the trial Judge in relying on that part of the
evidence in the chief-examination which was not controverted in the cross-examination though the witness was treated as hostile. That apart,
P.Ws.21, 23 and 24 have identified M.O.23, maruti car, which was seen by them on the morning hours of the date of occurrence.
It remains to be stated that the non-examination of the mother of the deceased would in no way affect the case of the prosecution since even if
she was examined, she could not have spoken anything about the occurrence. What was all done by her in the entire case is identifying the dead
body along with the other witnesses. The comment made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even on 15.11.2006 itself, when P.Ws.4,
11 and the mother of the deceased appeared before the Investigator, they should have mentioned about the involvement of the accused cannot be
countenanced since the Investigator has categorically deposed that the he came to know about the involvement of the accused only after the
confessional statement was made by him. It is pertinent to point out that the case was originally registered u/s 174 Cr.P.C., and after the
postmortem was made pursuant to the identification of the dead body by those witnesses, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC. Pending the
investigation, the accused surrendered before P.W.5 on 15.12.2006, and the material objects were recovered. Thus all or any one of the
contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance. It can be well stated that the prosecution by suffice
evidence has proved the motive attributed to the accused and also the charges that it was he who caused the death of the lady by strangulating her
by using a nylon rope, took her dead body in his Maruti car, M.O.23, drove the car on the dead body in order to show as if it was a road accident
and left the body in the roadside in order to screen the evidence. The trial Judge was perfectly correct in finding the appellant guilty of both the
charges and awarding the above punishment. There is nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court either factually or legally.
In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.