மனைவியை கொலை செய்த வழக்கில் கணவருக்கு ஆயுள் தண்டனை. Full order special pp Arthi basker.

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Judicial Form No. 61

(Cr.R.P 106)

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE,  MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,

Sessions Judge,

 Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai

Dated,  Thursday, the 7th day of  April, 2022

Complainant The Inspector of  Police, H-4, Korrukupet  Police Station, Chennai – 21.

(Crime No.82/2020)

Name of the Accused Ravi, M/A. 42/2020, S/o. Palani
Offence charges Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding   In the result the accused is  found guilty as charged under  sections 498A and 302 IPC.

2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 24Mk; ehs; tpahHf;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 161/2020

(CNR NO. TNCH01-021103-2020)

ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI

(P.R.C. No.29/2020 in (Crime No.82/2020-H-4, Korrukupet Police Station) on the file of the Learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Sections 498A and

302  IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Sentence (a)            the accused is convicted under Section 498A

IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for THREE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ONE MONTH;

(b)            the accused is convicted under Section 302

IPC and sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT

FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for THREE MONTHS;

(c)            total fine Rs.3000/-;

(d)            both the sentences shall run concurrently; and

(e)            the period already undergone by the accused from 29.03.2020 to till date, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C.  The case properties P.M.O.1/blood stained hammer, P.M.O.2/blood stained white colour shawl,

P.M.O.3/blood stained maroon colour saree,

P.M.O.4/blood stained maroon colour blouse and P.M.O.5/blood stained  in-skirt are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.

Compensation Order U/s. 357 or

357A Cr.P.C

      In fine, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to

J.F.No. 61 – Page

  P.W.3/Master.Vigneshwaran (son of the deceased) and P.W.4/Selvi. Bhavani (daughter of the deceased), after due enquiry U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

 
Description of the accused
Seri al

No.

Name Father’s Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Ravi Palani Hindu Coolie No.19B,

Thattankulam Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 21.

42/2020
Date

of

Occurrence 28.03.2020
Complaint-Final Report 03.11.2020
Apprehension or appearance 29.03.2020
Released on bail Accused in Judicial custody
Commitment 18.11.2020
Commencement of Trial 22.09.2021
Close of trial 28.03.2022
Sentence or Order 07.04.2022

J.F.No. 61 – Page

  Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 07.04.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L.,

Special Public Prosecutor.

Counsel for the Accused M/s. P.Venugopal

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

 

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE,  MAHALIR

NEETHIMANDRAM, ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.

 

   Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,

Sessions Judge,

 Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.

Dated,  Thursday, the 7th day of  April, 2022

2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 24Mk; ehs; tpahHf;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 161/2020

(CNR NO. TNCH01-021103-2020)

 

The Inspector of  Police, H-4, Korrukupet  Police Station, Chennai – 21.

(Crime No.82/2020)     … Complainant.

– Vs. –

Ravi, M/A. 42/2020,

S/o. Palani,

No.19B, Thattankulam Street,

Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 21.                                     … Accused.

This Sessions case is taken on file on 01.12.2020 and came up on

28.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of  Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,

B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of M/s. P.Venugopal,

Legal Aid Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both

….2.

sides and perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Final Report:

  1. The Inspector of Police, H-4, Korrukupet Police Station has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.82/2020, before the committal Court of the Learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, alleging that prior to the date of occurrence on 28.03.2020, the accused was not going to any job and used to frequently quarreled with the deceased and harassed her demanding money for drinking. If, she fails to give money, the accused used to beat and treat her with cruelty and harassment. On the date of occurrence, on the intervening night between 28.03.2020 and 29.03.2020, the accused quarreled with his wife, the deceased Tmt.Savithri, demanding money for drinking. When she refused, the accused quarrelled with her and got enraged and with the intention of kill the deceased assaulted her with a hammer with a wooden handle on her head several times and smashed her head, due to which, the deceased died. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.

….3.

  1. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the offence by the Committal Court and on producing the accused from judicial custody, the copies of all the documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused by the Committal Court in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, vide Order dated 18.11.2020 in P.R.C. No. 29/2020, has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Chennai, and committed the accused to be produced before the Sessions Court.

The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.

  1. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges: Upon the accused being produced from custody and in the presence of the Learned Counsel for the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences which are

….4.

exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.  When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned,  he pleaded not guilty.  Hence, proceedings were issued

for trial.

  1. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charges against the accused, out of 22 witnesses cited, 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.23 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
  2. The facts set-out through the oral and documentary evidences produced on the side of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:-

5.1. P.W.1, Tmt.Salsa is the elder sister of the deceased Tmt.Savithri.

P.W.2, Tr.Gopalakrishnan is the husband of P.W.1. They reside at

Melkalvai                                           Village,                                    Chengalpatu                                           District.                                             P.W.3,

Master.Vigneshwaran and P.W.4, Selvi.Bhavani are the children of the deceased and the accused.

5.2. P.W.5, Tmt.Ambika is the sister-in-law of the accused (younger brother’s wife). P.W.6, Tr.Veeraraghavan is  one of the elder brother of the accused and P.W.7 is another elder brother of the accused.

….5.

5.3. P.W.5 to P.W.7 and the accused along with the deceased and his children were residing in various portions of the common house property situated at No.19B,  Thattankulam Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai. The accused and his wife (deceased) were residing in the portion at first floor. P.W.5, Tmt.Ambika and her husband are also residing in the first floor adjacent to the portion of the accused. P.W.6 and P.W.7 were residing at the ground floor.

5.4. The accused was initially working in a steel workshop as a coolie. Subsequently, he left the job and did not go to work. Therefore, the deceased Tmt.Savithri was burdened to go to work and look after the family and her children. The accused used to frequently quarrel with the deceased demanding money for drinking and smoking.  He used to torture the deceased and quarrel with her and even beat her. Their kids P.W.3 and P.W.4 would witness such quarrel between their parents. When the accused come drunken and quarrel with the deceased demanding money, he will beat her and the kids would go and bring their paternal uncle and aunt.  P.W.5 the brother’s wife of accused and others will go and tried to pacify the accused. But the accused will also startle upon them and even come to assault them. The deceased used to narrate her pathetic condition to P.W.5 and

….6.

cry. The accused would also take the things from the home and get money by pawing them to get money and drink. On coming to know about the same, the deceased would go and redeem the things. In such a manner the accused was subjecting the deceased to severe harassment and cruelty.

5.5. Ten days prior to 28.03.2020, the date of occurrence, before the

Covid Lock down was imposed, the deceased took her kids, P.Ws. 3 and 4 and left them in her sister’s (P.W.1) house for  holidays. The children were staying with her sisters. Due to lock down, the deceased was unable to go and bring them back as there was no bus

facility.

5.6. On 28.03.2020 at about 08.00 p.m. P.W.5, Tmt.Ambika along with her mother-in-law and wives of other brothers of the accused and the neighbours were sitting in the ground floor of the house and were chatting. The deceased was also with them chatting. By 08.00 p.m. the deceased left stating that she has to give food to her husband (accused) and then she will return. But, at  08.45 p.m. the deceased came and told that her husband has not sleep and that she will come after he goes to sleep. Thereafter, the deceased did not come back. P.W.5 and others heard the noise of quarrel and talking

….7.

between the accused and the deceased. After some time the noise stopped and it became silent. Since the deceased did not come back, P.W.5 and others went to sleep by 11.00 p.m.

5.7. Usually, the deceased used to wake up by 04.00 or 05.00 a.m. On 29.03.2020 morning at about 08.00 a.m., the mother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.5, told P.W.5 that the deceased has not come down till then and asked P.W.5 to go and look for her. So, P.W.5 went to the house of the deceased. The deceased was lying in the cot on one side and her head was covered with a cloth. When she went near the cot she felt stepping on something sticky on the floor. On seeing, it was blood. P.W.5 came one shouting and called for others. Then, along with others they went inside and saw the deceased by removing the cloth. The head of the deceased was found smashed. Immediately, P.W.5 informed for Ambulance and further informed P.W. 2, the sisters husband of the deceased about the incident.

5.8. P.Ws.1 and 2 coming to know along the incident, along with the P.Ws. 3 and 4, the kids of the deceased, came to Chennai and saw the deceased at the hospital and found her death with smashed

….8.

head. Later P.W.1 lodged a complaint in Ex-P.2 at the Police Station.

5.9. P.Ws. 1 to 7 have testified in consonance with the above facts. As the accused was  not produced from custody on  the date of examination of P.Ws. 1 to 4, the learned Counsel for accused filed petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C., to represent the accused. Hence, the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 identified the accused in the photo shown to them, marked as Ex-P.1. In fact, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused.

5.10. The other corroborating witnesses are, P.W.8,  Tmt.Muthulakshmi, who is the neighbour of the deceased has also identified the accused as the husband of the deceased and corroborated the facts regarding the accused quarreling with the deceased and asking money for drinking and other facts regarding finding the deceased death on the date of occurrence. P.W.13, Tmt.Mahalakshmi, and P.W.11, Tt.Deepa would also narrate the same facts and

corroborated the other witnesses.

5.11. P.W.18, Tr.Sathishkumar was then S.I. of Police at H-4, Korrukupet Police Station. On 29.03.2020 at about 09.30 a.m. he received the

….9.

complaint in Ex-P.2 given by P.W.1 and registered the case in

Cr.No.82/2020 under Section 302 IPC. Ex-P.14 is the First

Information Report. After sending the complaint and F.I.R. to the Court he handed over the case file to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

5.12. P.W.19, Tmt.Thavamani, was then Inspector of Police (Crime), H-4, Korrukupet Police Station and was holding additional charge as Inspector of Police(law and order). P.W.19(I.O.), received the case file and took up the case for investigation.  On 29.03.2020 at about 10.15 a.m. she went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses P.W.9/Tr.Paneerdhas and Tr.Ganesan prepared the Observation-mahazar/Ex-P.5 and rough-sketch/ExP.16. P.W.9 would deposed about the police coming to the place of occurrence and making enquiry. He identified his signature in the Observation-mahazar, marked as Ex-P.3.

5.13. At about 10.50 a.m. P.W.19 (I.O) recovered a blood stained white colour shawl (M.O.2) under the cover of mahazar/Ex-P.17. P.W.9 would also identified his signature in the seizure-mahazar, marked as Ex-P.4.

….10.

 

5.14. Then, P.W.19, the Investigating Officer (I.O.), forwarded the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to Government Stanley Hospital through P.W.14/Tr.Sivakumar. Thereafter, P.W.19 went to the hospital and conducted inquest between 11.30 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. and prepared the inquest report in Ex-P.18. Further she gave a requisition for Post-mortem through the Head-constable Tr.Sivakumar.

5.15. P.W.16/Dr.Vijay Balaji, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine at Government Stanley Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the post-mortem report/Ex-P.9, which reads as below:

“The body was first seen by the undersigned at 2.40 P.M. on 29.03.2020. Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present all over the body. Post-mortem commenced at 02.40 P.M. on 29.03.2020 and completed at 3.40 P.M. on 29.03.2020. Appearances found at the post-mortem. Moderately nourished female body, aged about 38 years. Finger and toe nails blue in colour.

Following antemortem injury noted over the body:

  1. Avulsed hacerated wound measuring 10 cm x 5 cm x brain depth noted over night temporo parietal region.

On dissection of Scalp, skull and dura:

….11.

Subscalpal contusion measuring 11 cm x 8 cm noted over right front temporo parietal region comminuted fracture of  8 cm diameter noted over right temporo parietal region with underlying dural tear of 6 cm noted. Laceration measuring 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm noted over right temporo parietal lobe of brain. Diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both cerebral hemispheres. Fissure fracture measuring 4 cm noted over right side of anterior cranial tossa and fissure fracture measuring 6 cm noted over right side of middle cranial tossa.

Other findings: On dissection of chest: Fracture of ribs 3, 4 and 7 on right side in paravertebral plane with surrounding soft tissue bruising noted right pleural cavity contained about 100 ml of fluid blood with clots. Left pleural cavity empty. Heart- Right side chambers contain fluid blood with post mortem clots. Left side chambers empty. Coronaries – Patent. Great vessels- Intact.

Lungs – normal in size and cut section congested. Harynx & TracheaIntact. Hyoid Bone – Intact. Peritoneal cavity – empty. Stomach – contained 300 grams of partially digested food particles with no specific smell, Mucosa – Normal.

Liver, spleen & Kidneys – Normal in size and cut section congested.

Small intestine – Contained 100 ml of bile stained fluid with no specific smell, Mucosa- Normal. Large intestine – distended with gas. Uterus – normal in size and cut section empty.

Bladder – empty. Pelvis & spinal column – Intact.

….12.

PROVISIONAL OPINION:

(b) The deceased would appeared to have died of multiple injuries sustained by her viz craniocerebral injuries and Right sided chest injury, 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.

Note: 1) The injuries mentioned are antemortem in nature and are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and would have caused by blunt force/ blunt weapon.

2) Final opinion- Pending for want of visceral chemical analysis report viscera preserved and send for analysis through in charge PC.

5.16. The viscera was preserved and sent to Forensic Science

Department for examination through P.W.15, Tr.Sakthivel, then Head-constable, and the Toxicological report in Ex-P.10 is received with the opinion that no poison was detected in any of them. Thereafter, P.W.16, gave the final opinion, marked as Ex-P.11, that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries sustained by her viz Craniocerebral injuries and right sided chest injury,  before 12 to18 hours prior to the post-mortem.

5.17. After completing the Post-mortem, P.W.14 (Head Constable) reported before P.W.19 (I.O.) and produced the dresses of the deceased, namely blood stained maroon colour saree (P.M.O.3); blood stained maroon colour blouse (P.M.O.4);  and blood stained

….13.

white and green colour in-skirt (P.M.O.5). The same was received by P.W.19 under a Form-95 in Ex-P.19.

5.18. On the same day on 29.03.2020 P.W.19(I.O) arrested the accused at about 15.00 hours near Mint Thangasalai and recorded the confession given by the accused in the presence of P.W.10/Tr.Sekar and P.W.12/Tr.Kumar. The accused gave a disclosure statement to identify and produce a hammer hidden by him near Kannan Rountana Railway Track. Accordingly, the accused took them to the place of hiding and produced the hammer (P.M.O.1), which was seized by P.W.19 under the cover of mahazar/Ex-P.8. Ex-P.20 is the admissible portion of the confession. P.W.10, Tr.Sekar turned hostile by noting supporting the arrest and recovery, but, he identified his signatures in the confession and seizure mahazar, which are marked as Ex-P.5 and Ex-P.6 respectively. The another witness for arrest and  recovery, P.W.12, Tr.Kumar, has identified the accused and deposed about the police taking his signature in the confession statement, marked as Ex-P.7, and about the accused producing the hammer near the railway track, which was seized by the Police under Ex-P.8/seizure-mahazar. He has identified P.M.O.1 as the hammer which was produced by the accused. Then, P.W.19

….14.

(I.O.) brought the accused and the seized properties to the Police Station and thereafter the accused was sent for remand.

5.19. Further, in the course of the investigation, P.W.19 (I.O.) examined the witnesses P.W.1/Tmt.Salsa, P.W.2/Tr.Gopalakrishnan,

P.W.5/Tmt.Ambika, P.W.6/Veeraraghavan, P.W.7/Tr.Elumalai,

P.W.8/ Tmt.Muthulakshmi, P.W.9/Tr.Panneerdhas, witness Tr.Ganesan, P.W.10/Tr.Sekar, P.W.12/Tr.Kumar,

P.W.14/Tr.Sivakumar                                              (Head                                       constable),                                                  and                                           P.W.18/

Tr.Sathishkumar (S.I. of Police) and recorded their statements.

Thereafter, as Tmt.Kavitha, the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) took charge at the Police Station and joined duty. P.W.19 handed over the case file for further investigation to P.W.20/Tmt.Kavitha.

5.20. P.W.20, Tmt.Kavitha, Inspector of Police (Law and Order) took up further investigation from P.W.19. She examined the witnesses

P.W.11/Tmt.Deepa,                            P.W.12/Tr.Kumar, P.W.14/Tr.Sivakumar,

P.W.15/Tr.Sakthivel, P.W.16/Dr.Vijay Balaji, Dr.Sivapriya

(Forensic                                           Science                                  Department),                           P.W.17/Tr.Ragupathy,

P.W.18/Tr.Sathishkumar and P.W.19, Inspector of Police/

Tmt.Thavamani and recorded their statements.  The case properties

….15.

P.M.Os. 1 to 5 were sent to Forensic Science Department through Court and the Biological report/Ex-P.21 with the opinion that blood was detected in P.M.Os. 1 to 5 and Ex-P.23 is the serology report with the opinion that the blood group of the deceased is group ‘O’ and Ex-P.22 is the Serology report with the opinion that human blood was detected in M.Os. 1 to 5, but the grouping in P.M.O.1/Hammer was inconclusive. With this P.W.20 (I.O.) completed the investigation and laid a final report against the accused for the said offences mentioned supra.

Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and  his  defence:

  1. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating

circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused was put to him and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.  During such examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances against him regarding the demand for money and harassment. However he would admit that he assaulted the deceased with wooden stick on the date of occurrence and he would state as below: “சமமபவமம நடநமத தததத சசததசனம   . கடமடடயசலம  எனம மடனவதடய அடதமததனம  . தபசமமதபசத ததசதயசமலம அடததம தனம. பலமசக படமடவதடமடளமளத. எனம மடனவத மயகமகமம ஆகத கடமடலதலம படததமவதடமடசசம. Thus, the accused admit that he

….16.

assaulted the deceased on the date of occurrence. Though he pleaded not guilty at the time of framing the charge against him, during the examination under Section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C., he admits his presence at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence and that he assaulted the deceased.  Further, the accused didn’t choose to examine any witnesses on his side and closed his defence.

  1. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for

determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under sections 498A and 302 of IPC,  beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

  On the Point :

  1. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused.
  2. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the deceased as Tmt.Savithri, wife of the accused. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 7 including the kids of the accused, namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4, have identified the deceased as the wife of the accused. This fact is not denied by the accused during cross-examination, Therefore, the identity of the deceased and the

….17.

marital relationship between the accused and the deceased is proved by the prosecution.

  1. The prosecution has examined P.W.16/Dr.Vijay Balaji, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased to prove the cause of death. The evidence of P.W.16 and Ex-P.9/Post-mortem report and Ex-P.11/Final opinion, would prove that the deceased had died due to multiple injuries sustained by her viz. Craniocerebral injuries and right sides chest injury, 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. The injuries mentioned are ante-mortem in nature and are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could have been caused by blunt force/blunt weapon.  The injuries mentioned in the Post-mortem report would clearly established that the attack has been brutal in nature.  The head of the deceased has been smashed. Such injury would establish that  the  assailant has made such attack with all force with the ulterior motive to see that deceased never survives the attack. Thus, it is clearly proved from the medical evidence that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature.
  2. According to the prosecution, the accused who is a drunkard, does not go to work and quarrel with the deceased demanding money for drinking. If she refuses money, he has assault her. These facts are very clearly and cogently spoken by P.W.3 and P.W.4 the kids of the accused, who are the eye witnesses to such cruelty and harassment. Further, P.W.5 their aunt, who is

….18.

the wife of brother of accused, has corroborated them in material particulars. They have narrated that several days, the accused would come drunk and assault the deceased for not giving money. P.W.3 and P.W.4 would further deposed that on seeing their mother brutally assaulted, they would go and bring that paternal uncle and his wife, who resides in the same building in the adjacent portion, who would come pacify the problem. This fact is also clearly corroborated by P.W.5. She would also testify the facts regarding the accused treating the deceased with cruelty demanding money for drinking. The other witnesses P.Ws

6 and 7, brothers of the accused have also testified corroborating these facts. The neighbours P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.13 would also testify the conduct of the accused torturing the deceased. Furthermore, P.W.1, the sister of the deceased would also state that the deceased would complaint to her about the accused assaulting her for not giving money. Hence, the evidence adduced by the above witnesses inspire the confidence of this Court to established that the accused did not go to work and he was a drunkard, who used to come home and treat the deceased with cruelty and harass her demanding money for drinking.

  1. The occurrence has taken place on the intervening night on 28.03.2020 and 29.03.2020. There is no eye witness for the occurrence. The prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence that the deceased was lastly found in the company of the accused in her home. The sole witness

….19.

examined in this regard is P.W.5/Tmt.Ambika. Her evidence runs as follows:

“28.03.2020         அனமற                       இரவ                               8                            மணதவடர       எஙமகளடனம            சசவததமரத

தபசதகமதகசணமடரநமதசரம. தனம கணவசம 8 மணதகமக சசபமபதடவசசம. சசபமபசட தகசடதமதவதடமட தபசகததறனம எனமற தசசலமலதவதடமட தபசனசசம    . இரவ 8.45 மணதகமக சசவததமரத வநதம இனனமமம தனம கணவசம தஙமகவதலமடல அவசம தஙமகதய பதறக வரகததறனம எனமற தசசலமலதவதடமட தபசனசசம   . நசனம எனம மசமதயசசம ககழம வகடமடலம எனம

கணவசதனம அணமணதகளம மறமறமம  பகமகதமத வகடமடகமகசரசமகளடனம தபசத தகசணமடரநமததனம. அதனபம தறக  சசவததமரத வரவதலமடல . தகசஞமச தநரமம சதமதமசக  இரநதமத. எததசதயமம சசவததமரதயமம சததமமசக  தபசதகமதகசணமடரநமதசசமகளம. ஏததச பரசனம  தபசணமடசடமடகமகளம சணமடட எனமறதரநமததசமம  . அபமதபசத சசவததமரத வகடமடலம  அவரமம எததசதயமமதசனம இரநமதசசமகளம  . அவசம பதளடம ளகடள வதடமடற எனமபதசலம  சசவததமரத அவசம அகமகச வகடமடறமக அனபமபதயதரநமதசசமகளம. பதறக 11 மணதவடர சசவததமரத வரவதலமடல . தகசஞமச தநரததம தலம சதமதமம அடஙமகதவதடமடத  . தஙமகதவதடமடசசம எனமற நதடனததம  நசஙமகளமம தஙகம தவதடமதடசமம. அதனபம தறக எனமன நடநமதத எனமற   ததசதயசத. வழகமகமசக சசவததமரத  4 லதரநதம 5 மணதகமக எழநமதவதடவசசம . அனமற 29.03.2020 கசடல 8 மணதயசகதயமம சசவததமரத   வரவதலடமல. எனம மசமதயசசம இனனம  மம சசவததமரத வரவதலமடல எனமன ஆசமச எனமற ததசதயவதலமடல எனமற தசசனமனசசம. அதனசலம  தபசயம பசசமகமகலசமம எனமற மதலதலம நசனம தபசதனனம     . பதறக எனம மசமதயசசம  வநமதசசம. நசனம தபசயம பசசமதமததபசத சசவததமரத கடமடலதலம சசயமநமத மசததசத

….20.

ஒரகமகடலததமததபசலம படததமதரநமதசசம. அவசம தடலயதலம தணத தபசடமட மடயதரநமதத. நசனம கடமடலம பகமகதமததலம கசலம டவததம    தபசத  தகசலதகசலதவனமற இரநதமத. பசசமதமதசலம இரதமதமசக இரநதமத. நசனம கதமதததனனம. எனம வகடமடகமகசரரதனம அணமணனம தபசணமடசடமட எலலமசமம ஓடவநமதசசமகளம. அதனமபதறக நசனம தணத எடததம   பசசமதமததபசத சசவததமரதயதனம தடல சதடதநதம    நதடலயதலதரநமதத. நசனம உடதன ஆமமபலனமசதறமக தபசனம தபசடமதடனம    . அவசம எபமதபசததச இறநதம  வதடமடதசக தசசனமனசசமகளம.”  The above evidence of P.W.5 could not be dislodged and discredited during the cross-examination in any manner. The deceased had last spoken with P.W.5, saying that she is going to give food for her husband (accused) at 08.00 p.m. Thereafter she has come at 08.45 p.m.  and told that her husband has not slept and she will come back after he goes to sleep. Thereafter, she never returned. P.W.5’s evidence would further expose that on that night there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and she heard the loud voice spoken by them. Subsequently, it become silent and thereafter the deceased was found death on the next morning.  In fact P.W.5 tells that her mother-in-law informed that the accused was seen roaming in the earlier hours. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 would gain significance in the facts and circumstance of the case to prove the fact that the accused and deceased were together on the intervening night at their residence. In fact, the children of the deceased P.Ws. 3 and 4 were not at home, because they had gone to their

….21.

maternal aunt P.W.1’s house and were staying there for the holidays.  The conjoint reading of the evidence produced on the side of the prosecution will clearly established that the accused was the last person with the deceased before she was found dead on the next day morning.  Which means, the accused was the only person with the deceased in the house. Then, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was found death. The accused has not given any explanation. Instead, during the examination under Section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C., the accused would admit that he assault the deceased on the date of occurrence.

  1. The prosecution has further produced the weapon of assault

P.M.O.1 based on the disclosure statement given by the accused.

P.W.12,Tr.Kumar has clearly deposed about the accused producing the hammer (P.M.O.1) which would corroborate in material particulars the evidence of

P.W.19, the Investigating Officer, regarding the arrest and recovery of P.M.O.1. The weapon of assault P.M.O.1 along with the cloths of the deceased (P.M.O.2 to P.M.O.5)  are sent for Forensic Science Department. Ex-P.21, the Biological report would established that the blood was detected in all the material objects P.M.O.1 to P.M.O.5. Further, Ex-P.22 would prove that the blood of the deceased is of the blood group ‘O’. Ex-P.23 would established that the human blood ‘O’ detected in P.M.O.2 to P.M.O.5, but the grouping test is inconclusive

….22.

in respect of P.M.O.1/Hammer. Therefore, the above circumstances that the blood stained weapon of assault recovered based on the disclosure statement given by the accused is another circumstance that links the accused with the Commission of the offences.

  1. The Learned counsel for the accused would argued that the complaint was not given immediately by P.W.5, who had seen the deceased first. But, a belated complaint in Ex-P.1 is taken from P.W.1, sister of the deceased, who had come from Chengalpattu District after coming to know about the death of the deceased. He submitted that the time at which P.W.1 arrived at Chennai, is admitted to be 11.00 a.m, then it is improbable that Ex-P.2/Complaint was given at 9.30 a.m. Hence, it is submitted that such contradictions in lodging the Complaint causes doubt upon the prosecution case.
  2. On careful examination of the evidence, no doubt P.W.5/Ambika, who has seen the deceased first has said that she had informed the police. The Police ought to have received a complaint from her. But, for reasons best know, they waited for P.W.1/Sister of the deceased to arrive and lodge a Complaint. It may be that the others have not come forward to given the Complaint. P.W.1 would state that she came to Chennai after receive information about the death of the deceased and after seeing the deceased at the Hospital she lodged a complaint in Ex-P.2 at the Police Station. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that by 8.30

….23.

a.m. she has informed P.W.1 about the occurrence. As it was lock down period there was no public transport and P.W.1 to P.W.4 has arrived in the car. So, it is quit possible that they could have reached Chennai by 9.30 a.m. for lodging the

Complaint. During cross-examination P.W.1 would say that she came to

Chennai at 11.00 a.m. This may be due to passage of time and lapse of memory. In fact, P.W.19 (I.O.) after registering FIR has conducted inquest by 11.30 a.m. So, FIR has come to be registered prior to inquest. So, the contradiction regarding the time of coming of P.W.1 alone cannot be considered material to discredit the prosecution case, when there are other reliable materials to prove the occurrence. There is also no material delay in sending the FIR to Court. Therefore, the contention on the side of the accused cannot be sustained.

  1. Further it is contended on the side of the accused that the accused was present at the place of occurrence even after the alleged commission of the offence. But, P.W.5 would clearly state that when she went and saw the deceased at the house, the accused was not there. There is no evidence from the witnesses that they saw the accused thereafter. The would state that they were informed that the accused was caught. But, they have not seen him. So, the alleged presence of the accused at the place of occurrence even after the deceased was found dead cannot be sustained. As per the

….24.

evidence of P.W.19( I.O.), the accused was arrested on 29.3.2020 at 15.00 hours. There is no materials to dislodge the same.

  1. As discussed supra, there is sufficient evidence from P.W.5/Tmt.Ambika, that the deceased and the accused were together on the night of 28.03.2020. So, the accused was lastly found in the company of the deceased. There is no materials place on record to prove the contrary. On the next morning the deceased was found with severe head injuries and also broken ribs. In Palanichamy Vs.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Taluk Police

Station, Pudukkottai District (Criminal Appeal No. 331/2010,  Judgment dated 30.6.2015) the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, while confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the husband of the deceased has held that;

“14. As pointed out earlier, the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house where both the accused and deceased have lived together and no contra evidence is available with regard to the said aspect. Further it is not the defence of the accused that on the date of occurrence he has been away from the place of occurrence. Under the said circumstances, it would be apropos to look into Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads as follows:

“Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him?.

….25.

A mere reading of the said provision reveals that if a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of a particular person, the entire burden lies upon him.

  1. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the accused is the husband of the deceased and the entire occurrence has taken place inside their house. Therefore the entire burden lies upon him as to how or in what manner the occurrence has taken place. In fact this Court has analyzed the entire evidence available on record as well as answers given by the accused to the questions posed to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no proper explanation has been given by him. Therefore it is needless to say that as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even though the entire burden lies upon the accused, he has not discharged the same. Since he has not discharged his burden as contemplated as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court can very well draw presumption.”
  2. Thus applying the above ratio to the facts on hand, the accused and deceased were living together at the time of occurrence in their house. So, the burden is upon the accused to give explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused has not given any explanation. Instead, during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he would admit that on date of occurrence he attacked the deceased with a wooden stick and caused injuries. This version of the accused together with the other attending circumstances is sufficient to prove the complicity of the accused with the commission of the offence. Even in the absence of the statement of the accused under Section 313

….26.

Cr.P.C., the prosecution has able to prove the chain of circumstances to prove that the accused is the husband of the deceased, he was living together with the deceased at the place of occurrence, the accused is in the habit to frequently quarreling with the deceased demanding money to drink and assault her if she doesn’t give money, on the date of occurrence the accused and deceased were together in the house and the accused has quarreled with the deceased, the occurrence has taken place inside house in the intervening night of 28.03.2020 and 29.03.2020 and the accused was with the deceased, the deceased was found dead on the morning of 29.03.2020 and the accused has not given any explanation for the deceased found dead with injuries. All the above chain of circumstances are proved by the prosecution beyond iota of doubt. It satisfy the panchashell on the law on circumstantial evidence laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 ,  which read as below;

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should

….27.

be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, where the following observations were made:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

  • The facts so established should be consistent only withthe hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
  • the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature andtendency,
  • they should exclude every possible hypothesis except theone to be proved, and
  • there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not toleave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”
  1. The prosecution has satisfied the above conditions to prove the complicity of the accused. The medical evidence would prove that the deceased has sustained injuries that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused have inflicted the injuries on the head and chest in the viral parts so that the accused was rest assured that the deceased died out of such assault. Hence, this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed cruelty and also murdered the deceased with the

….28.

intention to do so. Hence, the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections 498A and 302 IPC are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The point for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.

  1. Result: In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under  sections 498A and 302 IPC.

//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of April, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

….29.

S.C No. 161/2020 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Ravi)

Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 07.04.2022 at  2.00 P.M.

  1. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;

கடறநதம தணமடடன தகசடகமக தவணமடமம                                                   .  ஒர வரடமம ஆகதவதடமடத                                                         .

  1. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to

3.20 P.M. today.

Pronounced in open Court on this the 7th  day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,  Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

….30.

  1. ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 161/2020 – DATED:

07.04.2022 AT  3.20  P.M.

Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the fact that the act would remorse for his ghastly act and the probability of reformation are the mitigating circumstances. Further, the offence does not fall with the case of rarest of rare case to invoke capital punishment. It has occurred during quarrel between husband and wife and the accused has inflicted the murderous attack. Hence, considering all the relevant fact and circumstance, the accused is accordingly convicted and sentenced as below;

  • the accused is convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for THREE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

ONE MONTH;

  • the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of

Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for THREE

MONTHS;

  • total fine Rs.3000/-;

….31.

  • both the sentences shall run concurrently; and
  • the period already undergone by the accused from 29.03.2020 to till date, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

  Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:

  1. The case properties P.M.O.1/blood stained hammer, P.M.O.2/blood stained white colour shawl, P.M.O.3/blood stained maroon colour saree, P.M.O.4/blood stained maroon colour blouse and P.M.O.5/blood stained in-skirt are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.

Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.:

  1. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and examined the facts and circumstance. Due to the offence committed, the children of the deceased P.W.3/Master.Vigneshwaran (son of the deceased) and P.W.4/Selvi. Bhavani (daughter of the deceased), have lost the love and affection of their mother at an young age. In fact, the deceased was earning and taking care of their education and well being. Now, as the result of the offence, their father, who is the accused herein, is also sentenced life imprisonment and continue to be in prison for life. The kids of the deceased have also lost the father care and

….32.

protection. They are now dependent on  their Aunt (P.W.1/Tmt.Salsa), sister of the  deceased. They are now students studying 11th and 8th standard respectively. They have a long way to go. It definitely requires financial support. Hence, considering the loss and suffering to the kids of the deceased, this Court find it a fit case to award compensation. The accused as such is not an earning member. He has no means.  Therefore, P.W.3 and P.W.4 being the kids and dependents of the deceased are entitled to adequate compensation to restitute their loss and suffering and for their rehabilitation, payable out of the Victim Compensation Fund created under Section 357A(1) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is inclined make  a  recommendation for adequate compensation under Section 357A(3) CrPC, to the District Legal Service Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award adequate compensation to P.W.3 and P.W.4, the dependents of the victim.

  1. In fine, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C.

to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.3/Master.Vigneshwaran (son of the deceased) and P.W.4/Selvi. Bhavani (daughter of the deceased),  after due enquiry U/s

357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of the The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

….33.

  1. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu

Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7thday of April, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,       Chennai.

List of Witnesses examined:

On the side of the prosecution:-

 

P.W.1 :: Tmt.Salsa (sister of the deceased)
P.W.2 :: Tr.Gopalakrishnan
P.W.3 :: Master.Vigneshwaran (son of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Selvi. Bhavani (daughter of the deceased)
P.W.5 :: Tmt.Ambika
P.W.6 :: Tr.Veeraraghavan
P.W.7 :: Tr.Elumalai
P.W.8 :: Tmt.Muthulakshmi
P.W.9 :: Tr.Panneerdhas
P.W.10 :: Tr.Sekar
P.W.11 :: Tr.Deepa

….34.

P.W.12 :: Tr.Kumar
P.W.13 :: Tmt. Mahalakshmi
P.W.14 :: Tr.Sivakumar (Head­constable)
P.W.15 :: Tr.Sakthivel (Head­constable)
P.W.16 :: Dr.Vijay Balaji (Post­mortem doctor)
P.W.17 :: Tr.Ragupathy
P.W.18 :: Tr.Sathishkumar (Sub­Inspector of Police)
P.W.19 :: Tmt.Thavamani (I.O.)
P.W.20 :: Tmt. Kavitha (Inspector of Police)

On the side of the accused:  Nil

List of Exhibits Marked

On the side of the prosecution:

Exhibit Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 Photo of the Accused
Ex-P. 2 29.03.2020 Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 3 29.03.2020 P.W.3’s signature in the observation mahazar
Ex-P. 4  29.03.2020 P.W.9’s signature in the seizure mahazar
Ex-P. 5 29.03.2020 P.W.10’s signature in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.6 29.03.2020 P.W.10’s signature in the seizure mahazar
Ex-P.7 29.03.2020 P.W.12’s signature in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.8 29.03.2020 Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.9 29.03.2020 Post­mortem Certificate (P.M.No.435/2020)

….35.

Ex-P.10 14.08.2020 Toxicological report (TOX.H.No.1037/2020)
Ex-P.11 Final report  given by P.W.16
Ex-P.12 Photographs
Ex-P.13 29.03.2020 65­B certificate
Ex-P.14 29.03.2020 First Information Report (C 9895112)
Ex-P.15 29.03.2020 Observation Mahazar
Ex-P.16 29.03.2020 Rough sketch
Ex-P.17 29.03.2020 Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.18 29.03.2020 Inquest report
Ex-P.19 29.03.2020 Form-95
Ex-P.20 29.03.2020 Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.21 26.08.2020 Biological report (T.No.3662/2020 BIOL 273/2020)
Ex-P.22 02.07.2021 Serology Report (T.No.7059/2020 SER/157/2020)
Ex-P.23 02.07.2021 Serology Report (T.No.3023/2020 SER’C’/62/2020)

On the side of accused:   NIL

List of Material Objects Marked:

On the side of Prosecution:

Exhibit No. Particulars
P.M.O.1 Blood stained Hammer  with a wooden handle-1
P.M.O.2 Blood stained white colour Shawl-1

….36.

P.M.O.3 Blood stained maroon colour saree-1
P.M.O.4 Blood stained maroon colour blouse-1
P.M.O.5 Blood stained green colour in-skirt-1

On the side of the Accused:   Nil

 

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                           Chennai.

// TRUE COPY //

 

 

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,         Chennai.

 

….37.

You may also like...