State of Tamil Nadu v. Manmatharaj

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJFr PASAYAT, J.

1Challenge in this appeal is, to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').

2Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: The accused is. a resident of Chockalingapuram. The G deceased Mariammal was his wife. Their marriage had taken place ten years prior to the occurrence. (The occurrence was on 29.5.1990) The deceased and the accused have a son a~ed about eight years. The deceased was employed in a private establishment near her village. PW2 is her co-worker. t [2008] 16 S.O.Ft A The accused came fo .. know that his wife was having an illicit r affair with PW 2. The·refore, he:warned his wife: However; 'the deceased continued her affair with PW2. Two weeks·priorfo the occurre~e~. on coming to know that th~ deceased and PW2 are happily spentling their time in the plantain ·garden of B Neerkathaling~m •. n'orth ofthe village, the(lccused wenfthere to catch them red-handed. Seeing his movements there, PW2 and the deceased parted company and moved away.

On 25.5.1990, the deceased and PW2 were found sharing their 4 bed in the very same plantain garden by PW3 and PW4. Both c PWs 3 & 4 reprimanded them. ·Coming to know about this incident, the accused questioned his wife on 29.5.1990 and his wife flatly refused such an incident There was an exchange of words between the two during which the accused abused the deceased stating that he had been put to shai:ne on account D of his wife's conduct and therefore, he must .k!ll her. He wanted his wife to accompany him so that he could verify with PWs 3 & 4 about the in.cident on 25.5.1990 in her presence. With that object in his mind, the accused took his wife to the private establishment where she was working. Enroute, they found I E PW5 seated under a banvan tree. The deceased invited him l I to jo[n them: tiowever, the.accused told PW5 not to accompany I>'- them.

The deceased and the accused .were proceed.ing towards north and they were passing a channel called "Vadi Kalvai" around 12 n,oon on that day. The deceased refused to L F proceed further towards the private establishment where she was working. She also told the accused at that time that she L would move only like that with PW2 and if the accused Is not .>... t willing for such a course, then she would rather go with PW2. Deciding that she should not be allowed to live any more, the G accused fisted her and pushed her inside the channel. Pressing her inside the water, he picked up a white stone lying nearby and repeatedly attacked ori her head with that stone resulting in injuries on the back side of her head, left ear and over the right cheek. Mariammalwas bleeding through the injury on her H head which stained the. earth as well as her saree. When STATE OF TAMIL NADUI v. MANMATHARAJ [DR.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] --r Mariammal was being pushed by the accused, she bit his right hand index finger as well as his right hand resulting in injuries to the accused. Thinking that Mariammal would die, the accused leaving Mariammal at the spot itself, rushed .to the establishment where his younger brother Kasirajan was working and confessed to him that he had attacked his wife with a stone. The accused and Kasirajan immediately went to the scene of occurrence where they found Mariammal fighting for her life. Immediately, the accused and his younger brother put her in a cart and took her to the house where she was laid on the western side of the house. When Mariammal was being taken c down from the cart, the shirt of the accused and his younger brother bec~me blood-stained. Sometime later, Mariammal died. The accused thought of burning his wife's body secretly. However, his conscience did not permit him to do so which impelled him to disclose the truth to someone.

Accordingly, he 0 reached the office of PW 1, the Village Administrative Officer around 8 p.m. On 29.5.1990 where PW7 and the Panchayat President were there. In their presence the accused gave a confessional statement.

3The Trial Court placing reliance on the extr.a judicial confession given to the Village Administrative Office (PW1) in the presence of PW7 directed conviction. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction. The High Court after referring to the evidence of PWs 1 and 7 held that Ex.P1 lacks authenticity.

4Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court should riot have directed acquittal doubting the authenticity of Ex.P1. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment.

5In the instant case, having concluded that Ex. P 1 lacks ~ corroboration, High Court has referred to the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 7 to find out whether their evidence would pass the [2008] 16 $.C.R. A test of reliability. High Court was of the view that it could rely -..rupon their evidence if it was: held· that Ex. P 1 had conie to' be recorded without any suspicious circumstance surrounding it r In this context, .a perusal of Ex.tP15 as well as E~c P1 itself give room to doubt.the very truth of Exs. P1 and P15. At the foot of I B Ex. P1, PW1 had made an endorsement. The endorsement as it stood originally reads that PW1 himself had taken the accused and Ex. P1 to the Police Station. However, there is a l> ,I correction in the endorsement made at the foot of Ex.P1 and it is made to appear that the accused was sent to the Police c Station along with Ex. P1 and othermaterial records onlywith . PW7, village ·menial.

PW7 would 'state that he went to. the Police Station where he presented the accused as well as Exs.PI and P3 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, examined as PW1 O in this case. PW 1 O had also stated so. But, in the same t D breadth, PW1 stated that he reached the Police Station at 12 in the night i.e., in the midnight of 29.5.1990; waited there for one hour; the Inspector of Police came and gave Ex. P1 only to him. He knows the difference between a Sub-Inspector and an Inspector. If the evidence of PW7 is accepted, itwill show beyond doubt that he had reached the Police Station only, in I I l the midnight of 29.5.1990 and Ex. P1 had·been handed over by him only to the Inspector of Police., Ex. P15 is the printed First lnformation Report. The evidence of PW10 shows that t--- Ex.Pl had come to be registered in the Police Station at 10 p.m. on 29.5.1990. Though under normal circumstances, the I evidence of PW7 regarding the time at which he reached the Police.

Station and to whom he had handed over the material records .and the accused would not assume any importance if there are any other direct circumstance in favour of th·e prosecution, yet, in view of the fact that the prosecution, in this t case, rests only upon the extra judicial confession ~tatement which does not find corroboration at all on general particulars, this evidence of PW7, definitely cannot be brushed asidewhile appreciating the case. of the prosecution. 'cf STATE OF TAMILNADUI v. MANMATHARAJ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

6One other circumstance in the evidence of PW 7 which definitely casts doubt on the cas~ of the prosecution is that he stated that after giving the material records at the Police Station, he went back home snd·the Observation·Mahazar and other material records were prepared by the Investigating Officer commencing from 6 a.m. on 30.5.1990. Therefore, according to PW?, after he handed over the material-re·cords at the Police Station, he went home and. again participated in ~ the exercise done by the Investigating Officer only from 6 a.m. onwards on the following morning. However, it is seen from _the evidence of PW 14 that the preparation of records had all been done, right from the midnight of 29.5.1990 itself in which PW7 actively participated. If this piece of evidence of PW14 which stands corroborated by contemporaneous documents is accepted, then the oral evidence of PW7 that he had handed over the material records to the Inspector of Police alone cannot O be totally brushed aside as inadvertent evidence. Why PW 7 wants to withhold even this piece of correct information in Court, namely, the time at which the material records starting from Ex.P4 had come to be prepared in a conduct can be definitely taken into account to doubt the evidence of PW7 and Ex.P1 would not have been registered at 10 p.m. as spoken to by PW 10.

7When an extra judicial confession is given to the Village Administrative Officer, he goes to the scene of occurrence; observes the dead body as well as the scene; satisfies himself about the truth of the statement given by the person concerned and then, prepares the material records. In this case, he did not do anything of that sort. Over and above all this PW1 has categorically admitted he knows that when an extra judicial confession statement is given to him, he should prepare not only a duplicate of the same but also prepare a duplicate of the Yadast which must be sent to the Court by him. He had categorically admitted that he neither sent Ex.P1 nor Ex.P3 to the Court. He had been a Village Administrative Officer of ten A· .. years standing. The.purpose of sending documents likeExs.PI and P3 ·to the· Court and the copies of the same to the Police is to.eliminate.false implication and to add.credibility to the extra· jud.idal. confession·sfatement itself The failure on the part of · PW1 1to. s.end ~he material. records to the Court, especially, when B he. w~s. aware· of his duty in that regard is yet another circumstance which is sufficient to doubt the entire case of the prosecution put through PWs 1 and 7.

8The High Court has rightly held that the prosecution c version is unacceptable.

9We find no·infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court to warrant interference.

10The appeal is dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed. I I