Natraj Chinnappa Nair vs State Of Maharashtra

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1002 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7253 of 2007)

Natraj Chinnappa Nair ...Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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

Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed

by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment

of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in

the SC Case No. 1098 of 1998. He was convicted for offence

1 punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short the `IPC').

3. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

PSI Balwant Patil was working as a Station House Officer

in Tilak Nagar Police Station from 8 AM to 6 PM. At about 4.30

p.m. one taxi halted in front of the police station. A lady

named Tulsibai Chinnappa got down from the said taxi and

came to the police station and informed the Station House

officer Patil that her son Natraj has consumed Tik-20 Poison

and he has been brought in the taxi. The Station House

Officer rushed towards the taxi. He is alleged to have made

inquiry form the person who was said to have consumed Tik

20 poison. The said person purportedly stated before him that

he assaulted his wife in a hit of anger and he himself

consumed the Tik 20 poison. Nivas Ayyer and Prakash

Muthkar were the other two persons sitting in the taxi. The

person who was said to have consumed the Tik 20 poison

became restless and serious and thus he was sent to Rajawadi

Hospital with P.C. No. 5437. PSI Pail along with PI Shirole

2 went to the spot Panchsheel Nagar. Several people were found

to have gathered in front of one Kuchha road. They entered

the room and found that one woman lying in an injured

condition in the room. On inquiry, PSI Patil came to know

from one Laxmi Surya the sister of Natraj that the injured

woman is the wife of his brother Natraj Nair. The injured

woman who was in a serious condition was sent to Rajawadi

Hospital. Before her admission in the hospital, she was

declared dead by the doctor on duty. PSI Patil filed complaint

on behalf of the State against the accused. The offence under

Section 302 IPC was registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station at

Crime No. 143-98.

PSI Patil drew the inquest panchanama on the dead body

of Surya Natraj the dead. Further investigation was carried by

PI Shirole. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On

26.7.1998 he seized the clothes of the accused and drew the

panchanama. On 1.8.1998 he seized the chopper and blouse

at the instance of the accused Natraj under memorandum

discovery panchnama. Accused was arrested on 29.7.1998

3 when he was discharged from the hospital. The attached

properties were sent to the C.A. along with the covering letter

under signature of the Sr. PI Shirole on 10.8.1998.

Since accused abjured with guilt, eleven witnesses were

examined to substantiate the prosecution version. The trial

court found that though the case rested on circumstantial

evidence and the chain of circumstances was complete and,

therefore, he must be punished for offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC. Life imprisonment was imposed. Before the

High Court the stand taken was that the circumstances

highlighted by the prosecution do not make out a case of

conviction of the accused. The prosecution on the other hand

submitted that the circumstances clearly establish the offence

by the accused.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that having regards to the circumstances

of the case, no case for conviction is made out.

4

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

supported the order. Circumstances highlighted by the trial

court and the High Court to find the accused guilty are the

evidence of Anil Das-PW 3 who had dropped the accused and

his wife to their house in his rickshaw and narrated about

hurling of abuses by the accused to his wife. After the

assault he consumed poison and was taken to the police

station by his mother and thereafter to the hospital where he

was treated by a doctor. The deceased died as a result of

several incised injury on her body which were caused by a

chopper. Recovery of the chocker and the blouse at the

instance of the accused are other circumstances which

conclusively established that the accused was in the room and

removed the blouse of his wife and thereafter assaulted her

with chopper.

6. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal

and the same is accordingly dismissed.

5 .....................

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

.................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi:

July 7, 2008

6