Murugan vs State Of T.Nadu

Murugan ...Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of

the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(1)

read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

1 the `IPC') and Section 302 IPC. The appellant was sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Life

Imprisonment for two offences. As noted above, fine was also

imposed with default stipulation.

3. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version in a

nutshell is as follows:

Tamilselvi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') is

none other than the wife of Andrews (PW1). They had been

blessed with three children. Except Romeo (PW 10) the other

two children were staying in a hostel.

PW 1 was carrying on groundnut cake business in the

ground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. PW 1,

the victim and their daughter Romeo were staying in the

upstairs of the said house. The accused Murugan was

employed as an assistant in PW1's shop and he was staying in

the ground floor itself where the business was carried on. The

deceased used to get his ration of food from PW 1.

2 On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim went to the

ground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of food

to the accused. P.W.1 waited for some time, but the victim had

not returned. He came down to the ground floor and heard an

alarming noise. When he attempted to push the outer door of

the ground floor, he found that it was locked from inside. P.W.

1 went around the house and peeped through the window. He

found to his shock that the accused, taking position on his

wife who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulate

her. Thereafter the accused opened the door from inside and

sped away from the scene of occurrence.

P.W.1 gave a chase accompanied by Elumalia-P.W.2. The

accused took shelter in a nearby bush. He went to the church

and informed the people over there. He came down to his

house and found his wife dead. Thereafter P.W.1 went to

Kolathur Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the

sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9, who was present over there.

The latter registered a case in Crime No.1050/2000 for the

3 offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex.

P9 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial

Magistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the higher

officials.

The Inspector of Police, Mr. Natrajan-P.W.13, who was

Incharge of the said police station when Varadarajan, the

regular Inspector of Police P.W.14 was on leave, took up the

case for investigation on receipt of a copy of the FIR and

rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough

sketch-Ex.P-12. He also prepared the observation Mahazar-

Ex. P-2 in the presence of Chellaiah, P.W.4 and another

witness. He held inquest on the dead body and prepared the

inquest report, Ex. P13. At about 8.30 p.m. on the said day, in

the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.13 recovered thali

Chain M.0.4 and packing material-M.0.7 under relevant

mahazar, Ex. P-3. He entrusted the dead body to the Head

Constable Mohan, P.W.8 for the purpose of taking the same to

the doctor for conducting postmortem examination.

4 Dr. Deivasigamnai, P.W.7, conducted autopsy on the

dead body of the victim at about 11.40 a.m. on 4.9.2000 and

found the following injuries and symptoms on the dead body:

"A well defined incomplete oblique ligature abrasions

mark in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage,

16 x 1 cms on the front, the ligature abrasion was 6 cms

below the chin and 6 cms about the suprasternal noted

and the ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the

neck. The subcutaneous soft tissues underlying the

ligature abrasion were found congested.

2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid

bone found with extravasations of blood in the

surrounding soft tissues.

Heart: Intact. Normal Trachea: Empty. Stomach

contained 200 ml. of brown fluid with partly digested

cooked rice particles. No definite smell."

5

4. After investigation charge sheet was filed. As the

accused pleaded innocence, he was put on trial.

5. In order to establish the prosecution version 14

witnesses were examined. Placing reliance on the evidence of

PWs. 1 & 2, the trial court found the accused guilty and

convicted and sentenced. The High Court upheld the

conviction and the sentence.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the defence version has been

erroneously discarded by the High Court. He has stated that

the conduct of PW1 after allegedly having seen the accused

with his wife unnatural and should not have been relied upon.

The presence of PW2 at the spot had also not been explained

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the

judgment of the High Court.

6

8. PW 1 has chosen to chase the accused along with PW 2

and having found some people in the church, which is nearby,

informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came back

to his house to verify the fate of his wife. PW 1 obviously was

in a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating his

wife. It is quite common for a person under shock to share his

grief to the persons who are found close by. It is not as if PW 1

rushed straight to the police station after informing certain

persons in the church without even verifying the fate of his

wife.

9. The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only on

the basis of his confessional statement his apparels had been

recovered. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

accused that the accused, who was spotted committing the

crime, would not have taken some time to hide his apparels at

a safe place. It is the case of the prosecution that PW 1

having witnessed the occurrence by peeping through the

window came down to the doorway with a view to open the

door. The door was opened from inside by the accused. It is

7 not as if the door was opened by PW 1 immediately after

witnessing the occurrence through the window. The accused,

who was inside the house, would have had time to remove his

apparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe

place in the house. Further it will not take much of a time to

remove the clothes by a person who was in a hurry to escape

from the scene of crime. In view of the above, there is nothing

to doubt the recovery of the apparels of the accused made by

the investigating officer. The recovery at the instance of the

accused raises presumptions of guilt as against him.

10. It is an unfortunate case where the accused has come

out with a repulsive counter version that he had some affairs

earlier with the victim, and when he was found embracing the

wife of PW 1, it was witnessed by PW 1. He has stated that he

was not the author of the murder. If at all the victim had an

affair with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would not

have come to light. But stand of the accused, who lived in the

ground floor for five years to be having an affair without being

noticed is too hollow to be accepted.

8

11. Trial court and the High Court have analysed the

evidence in great details and have come to the right

conclusion about involvement of the accused. We do not find

any infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court and the High

Court to warrant any interference.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

.................................J. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi:

July 7, 2008

9