High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Perumal v. The State represented by - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.548 OF 2004  RD-TN 636 (21 February 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21/02/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.548 OF 2004
Perumal .. Appellant
Sole Accused Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pattiveeranpatti Police Station,
Dindigul District. .. Respondent
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 12.11.2003, made in S.C.No.138 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
For Appellants ... Mr.C.Raja Kumar For Respondent ... Mr.A.Balaguru,
Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.) This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Principal and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, made in S.C.No.138 of 2002 whereby the appellant/sole accused stood charged under Section 302 (2 counts), tried and found guilty as per the charges and convicted under Section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment for each counts with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count and a default sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for each count and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) The appellant/accused and P.W.3 are brothers. They had a house property, which was divided. The main portion of the property was given to P.W.3 and the side portion was allotted to the accused. They were living in their respective portions. The deceased, two in number, are the wife and the daughter of the accused. The accused was originally working under P.W.12 in his field and he discontinued the work from there and he was liable to pay Rs.3,600/- to P.W.12. After the accused discontinued the work under P.W.12, both the wife and the daughter of the accused went to work under P.W.12. On coming to know about the same, the accused warned them not to go to work under P.W.12, but they continued to do so, despite his words. (b) On the date of occurrence, at about 06.00 p.m., both the wife and the daughter of the accused returned from the work. At about 09.30 p.m., the accused came to the house and there was a quarrel between the spouses. They asked the accused to take food, but he did not do so. After some time, the wife of the accused opened the door and came out with a distressing cry with all cut injuries on her thigh. The daughter of the accused also followed her. The distressing cry was being heard by P.W.5 and P.W.6. They saw the first deceased coming out of the house followed by the accused. When he further attempted to cut the first deceased, the daughter of the deceased intervened and came to the rescue of her mother. The accused cut the first deceased in four or five places indiscriminately and he caught hold of his daughter and attacked her with aruval and thus, causing death of both the persons, he fled away from the place of occurrence.
(c) P.W.2, the Village Menial, informed the occurrence to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.1 went to the place of occurrence along with P.W.2 and it was he who brought the same to the notice of the police. P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station took the complaint, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 and registered the F.I.R, Ex.P.19 and despatched it to the Court concerned. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. He proceeded to the spot at 01.00 a.m., on 07.01.2002 and made an inspection and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of the two witnesses and also prepared rough sketch Ex.P.20. The material objects were also recovered from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Then, through P.W.9, the place of occurrence, was photographed and M.O.6 and M.O.7, series of photographs and negatives respectively were marked. (d) The Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead bodies of both the deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P.21, the inquest report of the first deceased Theivakani, and P.22, the inquest report of the second deceased Ellammal. Further, both the dead bodies were sent with the respective requisitions for post-mortem to the Government Hospital. P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Batlagundu, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the first deceased Theivakani and has found the injuries and has given post-mortem certificate Ex.P.10, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. He has also conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the second deceased Ellammal and has found injuries and has issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.12, wherein also he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. (e) On 07.01.2002, the Inspector of Police, P.W.18, arrested the accused and in the presence of witnesses and the accused gave a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.5 and following the same, he produced M.O.5, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand. The material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead bodies of the deceased and from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by the Investigating Officer through the Court concerned to the Forensic Science Department with the respective requisitions, which resulted in the Chemical analysis report Ex.P.15 as well as the Serologist report Ex.P.16. P.W.3 and one another were taken before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Dindigul for recording their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, it was recorded. On completion of investigation, final report was filed by the Investigating Officer.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and relied on 23 exhibits along with 22 M.Os. After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the Court questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied them as false. On the side of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.
4. After completion of trial, the trial court heard the arguments of both sides, perused the materials available, found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishment as referred to above.
5. Hence, the appeal at the instance of the appellant/sole accused.
6. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6. Their evidence was thoroughly unreliable. The occurrence had taken place at about 09.30 p.m., inside the house of the deceased and thus, they could not have seen the occurrence at all and there were discrepancies in their evidence. The motive attributed against the accused for doing such a heinous crime was also flimsy. There was a long pending quarrel between the spouses and the medical opinion was also not in favour of the prosecution case. The alleged recovery of weapon of crime was nothing, but planted to suit the prosecution case. Under such circumstances, the trial Court should have rejected the prosecution case outright. Even assuming the prosecution case that it was the accused who committed the murder of both the wife and the daughter of the accused, the act of the accused would not be attracted to the penal provision of murder for the simple reason that even as per the prosecution, there was a quarrel that preceded the occurrence and after the accused discontinued the work under P.W.12, despite his word 'not to go', both the deceased have gone for work under him. Under such circumstances, his words were not respected and he also entertained suspicion and following the quarrel, he has acted and hence, it does not warrant the penal provision under section 302 I.P.C. and hence, it has got to be considered by this Court.
7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and this Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by both sides.
8. It is a case of double murder. The prosecution by sufficient evidence has proved that both the wife and the daughter of the accused were done to death at 09.30 p.m. in front of the house of the accused. In order to substantiate that it was the homicidal death, the prosecution marched the evidence of the Doctor, through whom the said fact was proved and he has also issued the post- mortem certificates to that effect. Apart from that, the accused, at any stage of proceedings, never questioned the said fact and hence, it has got to be recorded so.
9. Now, in order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused, who attacked both his wife and his daughter with aruval and caused their instantaneous death, the prosecution marched the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6, who were the direct eyewitnesses and they have also spoken to the fact that in the instant case, the occurrence commenced inside the house and ended in front of the house and the accused attacked his wife and further attacked the daughter who came to the rescue of her mother and caused their instantaneous death. The lower Court accepted the evidence of the witnesses, since it has inspired the confidence of the Court. Not even one circumstance or reason was placed before this court to discard or doubt their evidence and the medical opinion was also actually in favour of the prosecution. The yet another circumstance is the recovery of weapon of crime, pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused/appellant. Thus, the prosecution has overwhelming evidence, pointing to the guilt of the accused in murdering both his wife and her daughter.
10. Considering the availability of evidence, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance by this Court. Insofar as the act of the accused is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of the accused would fall within the ambit of murder. It is true, there was a quarrel preceded the occurrence. But, it is a case where the accused has caused the death of his wife and his daughter. The reasons for quarrel are flimsy and it was not made known clearly. It could be seen that after discontinuance of the work by the accused, it was both the deceased, who had gone for work and they were actually earning and the same cannot be found fault by the accused. At the same time, the accused has caused the death of both the deceased without any proper or sufficient cause and even without any provocation or any quarrel and hence, it cannot be said that it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was such a heinous crime committed by the accused with aruval and caused the death of both his wife and his daughter. The lower court has marshalled the evidence properly and found the accused guilty under section 302 I.P.C (2 counts) and awarded life imprisonment for each counts. There is nothing to interfere with the finding of the lower Court.
11. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge /
Fast Track Court No.I,
2.The Inspector of Police,
Ottapidaram Police Station,
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.