Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as below; (i) to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a Fine of Rs.10000 /-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS, under Section 302 IPC; 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. Special pp arthi for police
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, Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022
Complainant
The Inspector of Police,
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Law & Order,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
(Crime No.27/2020)
Name of the Accused
Prasath @ Pattibandala Pensala Prasath, M/A.32/2020, S/o. Eswaraiya Naidu,
Offence charges
Section 302 IPC
Plea of accused
Pleaded Guilty
Finding
In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under section 302 IPC.
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 30Mk; ehs; g[jd;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 114/2021
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006652-2021)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.33/2020 in (Crime No.27/2020-J-3, Guindy Police Station) on the file of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Section 302 IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Sentence
Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section
302 IPC and sentenced as below;
(i) to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE and to pay a Fine of Rs.10000 /-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX
MONTHS, under Section 302 IPC;
(ii) the period already undergone by the
accused from 20.01.2020 to till date shall be set off u/s.
428 Cr.P.C.;
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C.
The case property P.M.O.1/Hose Pipe is 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, out of the fine of Rs.10,000/- paid by the accused, Rs.8,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to the dependent daughter of the deceased, namely, Minor.Pooja, aged 5 years as on 2020, represented through her lawful guardian. The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, 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 the dependent daughter of the deceased, namely, Minor.Pooja, aged 5 years as on 2020, represented through her lawful guardian, after due enquiry U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil
J.F.No. 61 – Page
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.
Prasath @
Pattibandala
Pensala
Prasath
Eswaraiya Naidu
Hindu
JCB
Operator
Pogasamuthiram,
Nellore District, Andra Pradesh.
And also residing at
No.31/05, Masuthi
Colony, 5th Street,
Maduvinkarai,
Guindy, Chennai-32.
32/2020
Date
of
Occurrence
18.01.2020
Complaint-Final Report
05.10.2020
Apprehension or appearance
20.01.2020
Released on bail
Accused in judicial custody
Commitment
09.02.2021
Commencement of Trial
24.09.2021
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Close of trial
31.03.2022
Sentence or Order
13.04.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused
13.04.2022
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
Mr.K.R. Sreenivasan (Legal Aid Advocate)
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-03
Dated, Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 30Mk; ehs; g[jd;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 114/2021
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006652-2021)
The Inspector of Police,
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Law & Order,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
(Crime No.27/2020) … Complainant
– Vs. –
Prasath @ Pattibandala Pensala Prasath, M/A.32/2020,
S/o. Eswaraiah Naidu,
Pogasamuthiram,
Nellore District, Andra Pradesh.
And also residing at
No.31/05, Masuthi Colony, 5th Street,
Maduvinkarai, Guindy, Chennai-32 … Accused
This Sessions case is taken on file on 03.03.2021 and came up on
31.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,
….2.
B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of
Mr.K.R.Sreenivasan, Legal-Aid Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both 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, J3-Guindy Police Station has laid a
Final Report in Cr. No.27/2020, before the committal Court of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, alleging that on 18.01.2020 at about 16.30 hours at No.31/1, 5th Street, Maduvinkarai, Guindy, Chennai, while the accused was residing with his wife, the deceased Tmt.Usha Rani, due to quarrel between them regarding the accused selling the Motor-cycle, the accused with the intention to kill his wife (deceased) strangulate her with the washing machine hose pipe and committed murder. Hence it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. 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
….3.
207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, vide Order dated 09.02.2021 in P.R.C. No. 33/2020, 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.
3. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges: Upon the
accused produced before this Court and in the presence of the learned Advocate 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 an offence which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused and questioned whether he pleaded guilty or not? The accused pleaded guilty. In order to ascertain that the accused understood the question and his plea is voluntary or not, the same question was repeated for the second time asking him whether he
….4.
is pleading guilty due to any threat or coercion or influence? The accused replied that he voluntarily plead guilty. Though the accused pleaded guilty for the charged under Section 302 IPC, it being a grave crime, the Court cannot decide the matter based on the plea of the accused and has to put the accused to trial. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in spite of the plea of the accused. Therefore the summons were issued for examination of prosecution side witnesses.
4. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 21 witnesses cited, 15 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.25 and P.M.O.1 is marked on the side of the prosecution.
5. The facts set-out through the oral and documentary
evidences produced on the side of the prosecution put in a nutshell is as follows:-
5.1. P.W.1, Tr.Vinoth Kumar is the brother of the deceased Tmt.Usha Rani. P.W.2, Tr.Venkatesh is the paternal uncle (சசதததபதபப) of P.W.1 and as well as the deceased. P.W.3, Tmt. Hemavathy is the wife of
P.W.2. Basically P.W.1 and his sister Usha Rani hails from Nellore
District in Andra Pradesh. The accused also hails from Andra
….5.
Pradesh. The accused is the husband of the deceased and they were married in the year 2011. They have a girl child by name Baby. Pooja, who was aged about 5 years at the time of occurrence. The accused was originally working as a JCB Operator in Nellore District. After marriage, the deceased was residing with the accused in Nellore District. Thereafter they shifted to Chennai and were residing at the rented premises at the place of occurrence situated at No.31/1, 5th Street, Maduvinkarai, Guindy, Chennai, in the second floor. The said house belongs to P.W.6, Tr.Murugesan, from whom the accused and the deceased have taken the house on rent and were residing there.
5.2. The accused and the deceased were running an idly batter (இடலதச மபவ) shop near their place of residence at Guindy. P.W.4, Tmt.Sivakami and her son P.W.5, Tr.Varun were residing in the second floor in the adjacent portion to that of the deceased. So, they knew the accused and the deceased.
5.3. While so, there used to be dispute regarding the accused selling the Motor-cycle and the jewels of the deceased. The accused sold a bike purchased at Andra Pradesh and got a Unicon Bike by spending more than Rs.70,000/-. Further, one day he took the Thaali chain of the
….6.
deceased and pawned it for money and went away. This was informed by the deceased to her mother. On the basis of which, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, came to Chennai and the accused was not found for 2 days. So PW.1 redeemed the said Thaali chain by paying Rs.60,000/- and gave it to his mother and also informed to his parents about the happenings. The accused used to take money and drink and also used to quarrel with the deceased.
5.4. On 13.01.2020 the deceased along with her daughter came to her mother’s place in Andra Pradesh for Sankaranthi festival. The accused did not accompanying them. He came two days later on 15.01.2020 and took the deceased and his child to his native place. On the next date he brought them back and left them in her mother’s place and on
16.01.2020 the accused left for Chennai. Two days later on 18.01.2020 at about 07.30 a.m. the deceased along with her child returned to Chennai. P.W.1 boarded them in a bus at Nellore. When they reached Chennai, the accused went to pick up them from Madhavaram Bus stand to bring them to their Guindy residence.
5.5. On 18.01.2020 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused brought his wife
(deceased) and his child in an Auto and alighted at their house at Guindy and went inside. As the accused had sole his motorcycle
….7.
without the knowledge of the deceased, their was a quarrel between them. When they alighted and went inside the house, the accused was quarreling with the deceased angrily. This was witnessed by P.W.4, Tmt.Sivakami, the neighbour.
5.6. On the same day 18.01.2020 at about 11.30 p.m. the accused came down with his child. At the time P.W.5/Tr.Varun, son of P.W.4/Tmt.Sivakami, was in the bike parking area and speaking in his mobile phone. The accused who came with his child approached him and requested P.W.5 to drop him in the bus stand at Guindy Race Course. The accused told that his wife’s uncle is very serious and that his wife has already left with her brother and now he and his daughter were going. P.W.5 asked for his bike key from his mother (P.W.4.) and then took the accused and his child in his Motor-cycle and dropped them at Guindy Race Course bus stand and then he returned home.
5.7. Next day on 19.01.2020 between 09.00 and 09.30 a.m. the accused called P.W.1, Tr.Vinothkumar, the brother of the deceased, and informed him that there was a quarrel between him and the deceased regarding money and bike. In which he assaulted the deceased and therefore the deceased has hanged herself. The accused further
….8.
informed that he along with the child had gone to his native place to
Pogasamuthiram. Immediately, P.W.1 called and informed his uncle (P.W.2), who resides in Redhills, and told him about the information given by the accused and requested him to go and see his sister. Immediately P.W.2 along with his wife P.W.3/Tmt.Hemavathy and their daughter and son-in-law, went to the house of the deceased at the place of occurrence. They found the door was locked from out side. It was informed by them to P.W.1, who gave the mobile number of the accused. So they contacted the accused, who informed them that the key is kept inside a shoe. P.Ws. 2 and 3 pick up the key and opened the door. When they went inside the house they saw the deceased was lying on the floor and a bed sheet was covered up to her neck. As she was found death they came outside and informed P.W.1 and also went to the Police Station.
5.8. P.W.1, Tr.Vinothkumar came to his sister’s house by 12.30 p.m. When he went and saw there was no jewels on her sister’s neck. Further the accused had taken cash Rs.1,200/- given by his mother to the deceased. Hence, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint in Ex-P.1. As P.W.1 does not know Tamil. His statement
….9.
was translated by his uncle (P.W.2) and was reduced into writing by the Police at the Police Station. In which P.W.1 affixed his signature.
5.9. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the place of occurrence P.Ws. 4 and 5 saw them and they also came to know that the deceased was found dead. P.W.8, Tr.Asinas, who is related to the accused, also came to know about the occurrence and he went to the house of the deceased and saw the body of the deceased lying down in the bed room.
5.10. P.W.15, Tr.Chandru, is the investigation officer (I.O.), then working as Inspector of Police at J-3, Guindy Police Station. He received the complaint given by P.W.1 on 19.01.2020 at about 12.45 p.m. and registered the case in Cr.No.27/2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. suspicion death. Ex-P.19 is the First Information Report (FIR). He took up the case for investigation and at 13.15 hours went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses Tr.Saravanan and P.W.9, Tr.Abijith prepared the observation-mahazar/Ex-P.4 and rough-sketch/Ex-P.20. P.W.9,Tr.Abijith corroborate the evidence of P.W.15 regarding the preparation of observation-mahazar in Ex-P.4.
5.11. Further, P.W.15 in the presence of witnesses and panchayadars conducted inquest between 13.45 to 14.35 hours and prepared inquest
….10.
report in Ex-P.21. Thereafter he forwarded the body of the deceased through P.W.14, Tr.Sakthivel, Police Constable, along with Police memo and requisition for Post-mortem to the Government
Royapettah Hospital.
5.12. P.W.7, Dr.Visnu Rajkumar received the requisition given by P.W.15 (I.O.), and conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on
20.01.2020 at about 11.45 a.m. and issued the post-mortem report in Ex-P.3, which reads below:
Body was first seen by the undersigned at 11.45 A.M. on 20.01.2020. Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present all over upper and lower limbs. Post-mortem commenced at 11.45 A.M. on 20.01.2020. Appearance found at the Post-mortem Moderately built dead body of a female which lies on its back with edema, congestion and puffiness of face. Conjunctival congestion and petechial hemorrhages seen. Bluish discoloration of finger and toe nails.
Injuries: A horizontal ligature mark present in the form of pressure abrasion measuring 13cm x 3 cm seen over the front and sides of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. The upper border of ligature mark to right mastoid process is 6 cm with width 3 cm, to the chin is 4cm with width 3cm and to the left mastoid process is 7cm with width 3cm, the lower border of ligature mark to the sternal notch is 9 cm.
….11.
On dissection: Extravasation of blood present on both sides of sternocleidomastoid muscle and soft tissues of neck below the ligature mark.
Hyoid bone – Intact, Thyroid & Cricoid cartilage – Intact, Larynx & Trachea – Intact. C/s – Mucosa – Congested. No other injuries seen anywhere over the body.
On the dissection of Head:
SCALP/SCULL BONES/MEMBRANES: Intact. Brain: Surface vessels engorged. C/s: NAD, BASE OF SKULL: Intact.
On Dissection of Chest:-
Heart : Normal in size. C/S. All chambers contains fluid blood.
Valves: NAD; Coronaries: patent. Great Vessels : Nil particular. Lungs: Normal in size, Multiple sub pleural petechial hemorrhage seen over interlobar surface of both lungs. C/S. Congested.
On Dissection of Abdomen:-
Stomach: Empty. No specific smell smelt. C/S. Mucosa: Congested.
Intestines: Empty. Distended with gas. Mucosa: Normal.
Liver, Spleen & Both Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S. Congested.
Bladder: Empty.
Uterus: Empty.
Genitals: NAD
Pelvis and Spinal Column: Intact.
….12.
5.13. The viscera was preserved and sent for toxicology examination to Forensic Science Department and the report in Ex-P.2 was received with the opinion that poison was not detected. Hence P.W.7, Dr.Visnu Rajkumar, based on this examination opined that “The deceased would appear to have died of ASPHYXIA DUE TO LIGTURE
COMPRESSION OF NECK. HOWEVER THE POSSIBILITY OF
STANGULATION COULD NOT BE RULED OUT.”
5.14. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to P.W.14/Police Constable, who in turn handed over the body to the relations of the deceased and further he took the viscera to the Forensic Science
Department and handed over the same and then reported at the Police Station.
5.15. P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of his investigation examined the witness P.W.1/Tr.Vinothkumar, P.W.2/Tr.Venkatesh,
P.W.3/Tr.Ravi, P.W.4/Tmt.Sivakami, P.W.5/Tr.Varun,
P. W.6/Tr.Murugesan, witness Tmt.Pavya, P.W.8/Tr.Avinash,Tr.Saravanan, P.W.9/Tr.Abijith and P.W.10/Tr.Sitarasu and recorded their statements. On 20.01.2020 he examined P.W.7/Dr.Visnu Rajkumar, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and received the report.
….13.
5.16. Based on the opinion given in the autopsy report and based on the investigation that the accused has murder his wife, he altered the offence from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC and submitted the
alteration report in Ex-P.22 to the jurisdictional Court.
5.17. While search was made for the accused, information was received that the accused is coming from Andra Pradesh. So P.W.15 (I.O.) deputed Tr.Rajasekar, S.I. of Police, to go to Koyambedu bus terminus and bring the accused to the Police Station. Accordingly, on
20.01.2020 at about 13.30 hours the accused was brought to the Police Station and P.W.15 arrested the accused. The accused chose to give a voluntary confession which was recorded by P.W.15 in the presence of P.W.11/Tmt.Malleeswari and Tmt.Thilagam, both Revenue Inspectors, working under the Guindy Taluk Office. They were sent for to be witnesses on the requisition given by P.W.15 to the Thasildar Taluk office, Guindy. The confession statement was recorded from 13.35 hours. In which the accused disclosed information to identify and produced the plastic tube used by him in committing the offence. Ex-P.5 is the admissible portion of the confession statement.
….14.
5.18. Based on the said disclosure statement, the accused was taken to the place of occurrence. Where he identify and produced P.M.O.1 washing machine plastic tube/hose, which was recovered by P.W.15 (I.O.) at 15.00 hours under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.6. P.W.11/Tmt.Malleeswari, Revenue Inspector has deposed
corroborating the confession and recovery.
5.19. Thereafter the accused was sent for remand and the case property
P.M.O.1, plastic tube was sent to Court under Form-95/Ex-P.23.
P.W.15 (I.O.) examined the witnesses P.W.11/Tmt.Malleeswari and Tmt.Thilagam, Revenue Inspectors and recorded their statements.
5.20. Earlier, P.W.15 called the Police photographer Tr.Kandan to take photographs at the place of occurrence. Tr.Kandan took photographs and handed over the same to P.W.15 along with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Since Tr.Kandan has died, he is not examined. Ex-P.24 series are the photographs taken by Tr.Kandan and Ex-P.25 is the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
5.21. Further, in the course of investigation P.W.15 (I.O.) contacted the Nodal Officers from Bharat Airtel Company and Vodaphone
….15.
Company to furnish the customer details and Calls Details Records (CDR) for the mobile numbers 7395977841 and 9962148358
respectively, for the period 16.01.2020 to 25.01.2020. The requisition was given through Deputy Commissioner of Police.
5.22. P.W.12, Tr. Karthick is working as Nodal Officer for Vodaphone
Company. He received the requisition through the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the month of February 2020 and gave the particulars for the mobile number 9962148358. Ex-P.7 is the customer application form, Ex-P.8 is the CDR and Ex-P.9 is the Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. The said mobile number is standing in the name of Tmt.Hemavathy (P.W.3).
5.23. Ex-P.10 is the entry for the call made on 19.01.2020 at 11.56.29hours from the mobile number 8985124675 to the mobile number 9962148358. Ex-P.11 is the entry for another call made on the same date at 12.03.32 hours from the mobile number 9490778373 to the mobile number 9962148358. When these calls were made the location of the mobile number 9962148358, that belongs to P.W.3.
was at Guindy Maduvankarai, i.e., at the place of occurrence.
….16.
5.24. P.W.13, Tr.David Joseph Paulraj is working as Nodal Officer at Bharathi Airtel Company. On 29.09.2020 he received the requisition from Guindy Police Station to furnish the customer application and CDR for the mobile number 7395977841 for the period 16.01.2020 to 25.01.2020. Accordingly he downloaded and printed it out from the computer system and gave the same to the Police. Ex-P.12 is the customer application form. Ex-P.13 is the CDR for the mobile number 7395977841 and Ex-P14 is the Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. As per Ex.P.12 this mobile number stands in the name of the accused Patibandla Prnchala Prasad.
5.25. Ex-P.15 series are the entries in Ex-P.13 series for the calls made on 19.01.2020 at about 09.30 a.m. from the mobile number 7395977841, the belongs to the accused, to the mobile number 8985124675, that belongs to P.W.1. It was active for 78 seconds. Thereafter, another call made from the same mobile number to the same mobile number and it was active for 69 seconds. When the said calls were made the mobile number 7395977841 location was at Navvur village, Nellore
District.
5.26. Ex-P.16 series are another set of entries for the calls made on 19.01.2020 at about 11.38 a.m. from the mobile number 8072610255
….17.
to the mobile number 7395977841 and it was active for 57 seconds. Once again at 12 noon the similar incoming call from the same mobile number is made to 7395977841 and it was active 17 seconds. During that time the location of the mobile number 7395977841 was a Podalaguru Mandal, Nellore District at 11.38 a.m. and Thuvoor Village, Nellore District at 12 noon.
5.27. Ex-P.17 series is the entries showing that on 18.01.2020 between 10.00.47 p.m. and 10.07.22 p.m. the mobile number 7395977841, the belongs to the accused, was located Guindy Maduvinkarai. Further at 10.00 p.m. a SMS is received and at 10.07 p.m. an outgoing call is made to the mobile number 8248723362 and call was active for 13 seconds.
5.28. Ex-P.18 is the entry in Ex-P.13 showing that on 19.01.2020 at 4.23 a.m. the mobile number 7395977841, the belongs to the accused, was at Somasekarapuram, Nellore, Andra Pradesh.
5.29. P.W.15 (I.O.) collected the above call details records, customer application and the Certificate under Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act and examined the Nodal Officers P.W.12, Tr. Karthick and P.W.13, David Joseph Paulraj and recorded their statements.
….18.
Further, he examined Tmt. Vasantha Sundari, the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Department, regarding the test conducted on the viscera and recorded her statement. After collecting the above materials and examining the above witnesses, P.W.15 (I.O.) completed his investigation and laid a final report as against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. With this, the prosecution side rested its evidence.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
6. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused was put to the accused and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During such examination, the accused once again pleaded guilty and admitted the facts regarding his married with the deceased. He further admits that his wife and child who went to their native for Shankaranthi return on 18.01.2020. Further, he would admit that, he informed P.W.1 over phone that he assaulted the deceased and at the deceased hanged herself. Furthermore, the accused would say that “வவணதடமத எனதவற சசயதயவசலதலல . எனகதக எநதத பழகதகமமத கசலடயபத . கலதயபணமத ஆகச 10 வரடமத ஆகசறத . எதபரததததமபக நடநதத த. ஊரசலத இரநதத வநவத தனத. சணதலட வபபடதவடபமத . மபவ ஆடதட வசறதவறனத . லபகத வசறதறதபலத சணதலட ,
….19.
வவடதடகதக வநவத தபமத. 5 நசமசடமத வகபபதததசலத சசயததவசடதவடனத. வவற கபரணமத இலலதல.” The accused didn’t choose to examine any witnesses on his side and closed his defence.
7. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for
determination is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under section 302 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
8. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. Written argument also submitted on the side of the accused.
9. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the oral and documentary evidence in detail. The identity of the deceased and the relationship between the deceased and the accused are not disputed. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed that the accused is the husband of the deceased Tmt.Usharani. Further P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are neighbours and P.W.6, who is the house owner/landlord, who let-out the house in which the occurrence took place, have also identified the accused and deceased as husband and wife.
….20.
This fact is not denied by the accused during examination of these witnesses and during examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Thus the identity of the deceased and relationship is proved.
10. The cause of death is proved by the prosecution by producing the medical evidence through P.W.7, Dr.Visnu Rajkumar, who conducted autopsy and gave his opinion that the deceased has died of Asphyxia due to ligature compression of neck and that the possibility of strangulation could not be ruled out. The evidence of P.W.7 and the post-mortem report (Ex-P.3) would prove that the deceased has died due to Asphyxia due to compression of the neck.
11. Then, to attract the offence under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the said compression of neck is homicidal in nature and that the accused is the perpetrator who had strangulated and caused the compression on the neck that resulted in the death of the deceased.
12. There is no direct eye-witness to prove the occurrence. The prosecution has placed reliance upon various circumstantial evidence to prove the complicity of the accused. Let me detail with one by one.
13. Firstly, the circumstance relied on the side of the prosecution is that, on 18.01.2020, the deceased along with child came from Andra Pradesh to
….21.
Chennai and the accused brought them from Madhavaram bus stand to their residence at Guindy Maduvinkari, to the place of occurrence on 18.01.2020 at 01.30 p.m. That, while the accused and the deceased came, they accused was quarreling with the deceased and was scolding the deceased.
14. This circumstance is clearly proved from the evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, who has state that he boarded his sister and her child at Andra Pradesh to go to Chennai in a bus. Thereafter, their arrival at
Guindy Maduvinkarai, at their residence on 18.01.2020 is proved by P.W.4, Tmt. Sivakami, the neighbour who saw the accused and deceased coming at about 1.30 p.m. She has also further deposed that the accused was angrily talking to the deceased at that time.
15. Secondly, on the same day on 18.01.2020 between 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. that accused has sought the help of P.W.5, Tr.Varun, son of P.W.4 to drop him along with his child at Guindy Race Course bus stand. The accused has left the home locking the door from out side leaving the deceased dead inside the house and left to Andhra Pradesh.
16. This circumstance is clearly proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. P.W.5 has clearly deposed that the accused came down with his child at about 11.30 p.m. and requested to drop at Guindy Race Course Bus stand. P.W.5
….22.
asked for the bike key from his mother and the same was given by P..W.4. This fact is corroborated by P.W.4. Then P.W.5 has dropped the accused with his child at the bus stand. There is noting elicited during cross-examination to distort this version given by P.W.4 and P.W.5 that proves this circumstances clearly.
17. The above evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is corroborated by the electronic evidence regarding the CDR for the mobile number that belongs to the accused. The evidence of P.W.13 and Ex-P.12 customer application would prove that the mobile number 7395977841 belongs to the accused. The fact that the mobile number belongs to the accused is not denied during the crossexamination of P.W.13. On perusing Ex-P.13, the CDR and Ex-P.17, the entry therein, it shows the location of the mobile number 7395977841 that belongs to the accused was located on 18.01.2020 between 10.00 p.m. to 10.07 pm. at Maduvinkarai, Guindy. Thereafter, on 19.01.2020 at 4.23 a.m. the mobile number of the accused is located Somasekarapuram, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh is proved from Ex-P.18, entry in Ex-P.13/CDR. Therefore, the fact that the accused left Chennai along with his daughter on the night of 18.01.2020 and reached Andhra Pradesh on the morning on 19.01.2020 is also clearly proved by the prosecution by producing the location of his mobile number.
….23.
18. Further, the evidence of P.W.5 would show that the accused has told P.W.5 that his wife’s uncle is very serious and that his wife is already left with her brother and that he is now going with his daughter. So, it is quit clear that the accused has locked the house from out side and left on that day. But, on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in her residence.
19. So Thirdly, the next circumstance is that the body of the deceased was found in her residence on the next date on 19.01.2020 based on the information given by the accused to P.W.1 over phone that he has beaten the deceased and that the deceased had hanged herself.
20. The fact that the accused had called P.W.1 at about 09.30 a.m. on
19.01.2020 and informed as above is proved from the evidence of P.W.1. In turn P.W.1 has requested P.W.2, his uncle, to go and see his sister. Thereafter P.Ws. 2 and 3 along with her daughter and son-in-law had gone to the house of the deceased and they have found the door locked. So, they contacted the accused again and accused informed that the key is inside the shoe. As per the information given by the accused they got the key and opened the door of the house and found the deceased dead inside. These facts are clearly and cogently narrated by P.Ws. 1 to 3.
….24.
21. The learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that there are contradiction on the time when P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence, the mode of their transportation, as to who contacted the accused to get the key and regarding the presence of police at the time of opening the door and also by the time P.W.1 arrived the body was take away from the place of occurrence. So, it is submitted that these contradiction and inconsistencies raise doubt.
22. On careful examination of the testimonies of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the police witnesses, the alleged contradiction and inconsistencies are not material to raise any doubt. It is quit natural that all witnesses will not speak about the fact in a picture perfect manner. There will by some minor contradictions and inconsistencies here and there. But, the fact that the relations of the deceased, namely P.W1 and P.W.2 along with their daughter and son-inlaw at first came to the scene of occurrence and they opened the door and found the deceased dead inside is materially corroborated by P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are the neighbours. P.W.1 says that by 12.30 p.m. he reached the place of occurrence and then lodged the complaint/Ex-P.1. It is received by 12.45 p.m. by P.W.15 (I.O.) the FIR/Ex-P.19 is registered. No doubt the time of occurrence is mentioned as 12 Noon on 19.01.2020. It is because only by that time the deceased was found dead. P.W.15 (I.O.) has gone to the place of occurrence and
….25.
had conducted inquest/Ex-P.21 on the body of the deceased at 13.35 hours on the same date. Further, the observation-magazhar/Ex-P.4 and Ex-P.20/Roughsketch would prove that the body of the deceased was found in her residence on 19.01.2020 in the bed-room. So, all these materials clearly establish the discovery of the dead body of the deceased on the next date on 19.01.2020, after the accused left the home on 18.01.2020.
23. Further, the discovery is based on the information given by the accused to P.W.1 over his mobile phone. The electronic evidence in Ex-P.15 series in Ex-P.13 CDR would prove that calls were made on 19.01.2020 at about 09.30 a.m. from the mobile number 7395977841, that belongs to the accused, to the mobile number 8985124675, that belongs to P.W.1. When these calls were made the mobile number 7395977841 location was at Navvur village, Nellore District. This would corroborate the fact the the accused has contacted P.W.1 over mobile phone on 19.01.2020 at 9.30 a.m.
24. Ex-P.16 series are another set of entries for the calls made on 19.01.2020 at about 11.38 a.m. from the mobile number 8072610255 to the mobile number 7395977841, that belongs to the accused. Once again at 12 noon the similar incoming call from the same mobile number is made to 7395977841. During that time the location of the mobile number 7395977841
….26.
was a Podalaguru Mandal, Nellore District at 11.38 a.m. and Thuvoor Village, Nellore District at 12 noon.
25. Ex-P.10 is the entry for the call made on 19.01.2020 at 11.56.29 hours from the mobile number 8985124675 of P.W.1 to the mobile number 9962148358 of P.W.3/Tmt.Hemavathy. Ex-P.11 is the entry for another call made on the same date at 12.03.32 hours from the mobile number 9490778373 to the mobile number 9962148358. When these calls were made the location of the mobile number 9962148358, that belongs to P.W.3. was at Guindy Maduvankarai, i.e., at the place of occurrence.
26. Thus, the electronic evidence would corroborate the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the contacts made by the accused to P.W.1 and in turn the contacts made by P.W.1 to P.W.2 and P.W.3 regarding the information given by the accused. Further, location of the mobile numbers at that time would also prove the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence at Guindy Maduvinkarai. At that time the accused has given information about the key kept in the shoe. Based on which, the key is taken and the house is opened.
27. Therefore, it is clearly established that based on the information given by the accused to P.W.1, the body of the deceased was found at the
….27.
residence on 19.01.2020. Hence the third circumstance is also clearly proved by the prosecution. No doubt the accused has informed that the deceased has committed suicide. But, the confession and recovery and the medical evidence would prove the contrary. Further the plea of the accused before this Court is not that of suicide, but of strangulation.
28. Fourthly, the last circumstance is the confession given by the accused leading to the recovery of the P.M.O.1, a plastic tube/hose, used by the accused for strangulating the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused raised suspicion that the accused had reached Chennai on 20.01.2020 at about 1.30 p.m. and brought to police station. Then, the recording of confession in the presence of Revenue Inspectors by 01.35 p.m. and marking arrangement for their presence even before the arrival of the accused raises doubt upon the confession statement and recovery. Further, he submitted that P.W.2 would admit that he saw the washing machine hose pipe when he went inside of the house of the deceased even before lodging of the complaint and it is not found hidden anywhere. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.1 based on the confession that it was hidden by the accused and produced by him cannot be believe.
29. On perusing the evidence of P.W.2, he would identify the hose pipe P.M.O.1 and it is marked through him. He had further deposed that when the police came to the place of occurrence the washing machine hose pipe was
….28.
there. Further he would admit during cross-examination that P.M.O.1 was in the kitchen and it was lying in a visible place. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that the hose pipe was available in the house when he went inside the house of the deceased and also when the Police came there. But, the fact that the hose pipe was the weapon of assault used for the commission of the offence is not known at that time. In fact FIR is registered as suspicious death and not a case of murder. Only after the post-mortem report and examination of the witnesses P.W.15 (I.O.) has altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC. Originally the accused has informed P.W.1 that the deceased has hanged herself. He has not informed P.W.1 that he strangulated deceased. Only after the accused gave a confession, he disclosed about weapon of assault i.e., washing machine plastic hose pipe. Only then it had come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that the pipe is the weapon used for committing the crime and the same is recovered. Therefore, the P.M.O.1 hose pipe is discovered based on the confession given by the accused as the weapon of assault. Hence the availability of the pipe at the place of occurrence even before the arrest of the accused cannot be a ground to rejected the recovery based on the disclosure statement given by the accused.
30. It is the evidence of P.W.15(I.O.) that he received information that the accused is coming to Chennai on 20.01.2020. So, he deputed his
….29.
subordinate officer to secure and bring the accused from Koyembedu Bus Terminus. As he is aware, it is quit natural that P.W.15 could have made arrangement for the witnesses by requesting the Thasildar, Guindy Taluk office. P.W.11/Tmt.Malleswari, Revenue Inspector has clearly deposed that based on the instruction given by her superior, she along with Tmt. Thilagam, Revenue Inspector, reached Guindy Police Station at 1.30 p.m. for the purpose of recording the confession of an accused. P.W.11 has further deposed about the disclosure statement given by the accused leading to the recovery of P.M.O.1/Pipe, thereby corroborated the evidence of P.W.15 (I.O.) in all material particulars. Hence the prosecution has clearly proved the recovery of P.M.O.1 hose pipe with which the accused has strangulated the deceased and caused her death. Therefore, the last circumstance against the accused regarding the recovery of P.M.O.1, weapon of assault, is also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
31. In the light of the above proved circumstantial evidence, the accused is seen coming with his wife on 18.01.2020 at 1.30 p.m. Then, the accused alone with his child is seen leaving the house on the same night 18.01.2020 at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. At that time the accused has left the house locked from outside and told to P.W.4 that since the brother of the deceased was serious, his wife (deceased) has already left with her brother. On
….30.
the next day on 19.01.2020 the deceased was found death inside the house locked from outside based on the information given by the accused. Further, the accused has given information about the place where the key to open door is kept. Thus the chain of circumstances is proved by the prosecution without any break. Then the burden is upon the accused who was seen lastly in company of the deceased has to give explanation under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. But the accused has not chosen to given any explanation. Instead, the accused has pleaded guilty for murdering his wife both at the time of framing charge as well as during the examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He would state that during the quarrel due to anger he strangulated his wife and killed her. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation coming from the accused, to proved circumstantial evidence would establish the complicity of the accused without giving raised to any hypothesis pointing towards the innocence of the accused.
32. The learned Counsel for the accused would submit that there is property dispute between the accused and his brother one Tr.Vijayakumar. He has threatened the accused to plead guilty and only then his only daughter will be taken care off. So, for the sake of his daughter the accused has pleaded guilt. Unfortunately, there is no basis laid down in support of such contention during the examination of the witnesses. The accused has clearly understood the
….31.
questions put to him at the time of framing charges and during examination under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. He has voluntarily made statement admitting his complicity with the crime and failed to given any explanation to exonerate himself from the crime.
33. In K.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?.
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.
15. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the accused is the husband of the deceased and the entire
….32.
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.”
34. Applying the above ratio to the facts on hand, the failure upon the accused to given any explanation and in the light of plea made by the accused it would go to establish that the deceased had died due to strangulation and that her death is homicidal in nature.
35. Hence, in view of the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, even without the aid of the admission of guilty made by the accused. Apart from the prosecution successfully proving the complicity of the accused, he himself has also pleaded guilty. In the light of the proved materials the plea of the accused is substantiated and therefore, the plead of the accused can also be accepted as
….33.
another circumstance to find him guilty as charged. Therefore, the point for determination is answered in the affirmative.
36. Result: In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under section 302 IPC.
//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed in Computer, printed
out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2022//
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….34.
S.C No.114/2021 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Prasath @ Pattibandala Pensala Prasath )
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 13.04.2022 at 2.40 P.M.
37. 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; ஒனதறமத சசபலலத வவணதடபமத.
38. 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 3.30 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….35.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 114/2021 – DATED: 13.04.2022 AT
3.30 P.M.
39. 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 occurrence has taken place during a quarrel between the husband and wife. Out of rage the accused has killed his wife by strangulating her. The mitigating circumstances is that the accused has remorse for his act and there is possibility of reformation and rehabilitation. Hence applying the law laid down in CDJ 2018 SC 1277 = 2019 AIR(SC) 1 (Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State Of Maharashtra), to the facts and circumstances and considering the probability for reformation and rehabilitation, this Court is of the view that this case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare case for imposing capital sentence.
40. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as below;
(iii) to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a Fine of Rs.10000 /-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX
MONTHS, under Section 302 IPC;
(iv) the period already undergone by the accused from 20.01.2020 to
till date shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.;
….36.
Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:
41. The case property P.M.O.1/Hose Pipe is 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.: –
42. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and examined the fact and circumstances of the case. The ultimate sufferer due to the crime committed is the 5 year old girl child of the deceased and accused. Unscrupulous and irresponsible act of the parents has orphaned their child. Due to the crime committed by the father of the child, she has lost her motherly care, love and affection at a tender age of 5 years. Her father is going to languish in the prison undergoing life sentence. Thus, the real loss and injury suffered in by the daughter of the deceased Baby.Pooja, who was 5 years old at the time of occurrence. She would have undergone mental trauma and suffering due to the crime. Now, she should be under the care and custody of the relatives of the deceased. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the dependent of the deceased, namely, her minor daughter Baby.Pooja has to be properly and adequately compensated towards loss and injury and for rehabilitation in order to meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Court is inclined to award compensation
….37.
out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. As it will be only a pittance and will not be an adequate compensation, this Court is also inclined to make recommendation under Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C.
43. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.10,000/- paid by the accused,
Rs.8,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to the dependent daughter of the deceased, namely, Minor.Pooja, aged 5 years as on 2020, represented through her lawful guardian. The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
44. Further, 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 the dependent daughter of the deceased, namely, Minor.Pooja, aged 5 years as on 2020, represented through her lawful guardian, 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.
45. 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
….38.
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 13thday 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
::
Tr.Vinothkumar (Brother of the deceased)
P.W.2
::
Tr.Venkatesh
P.W.3
::
Tmt.Hemavathy
P.W.4
::
Tmt.Sivakami
P.W.5
::
Tr.Varun
P.W.6
::
Tr.Murugesan
P.W.7
::
Dr.Visnu Raj Kumar (Postmortem doctor)
P.W.8
::
Tr.Asinas
P.W.9
::
Tr.Abisith
P.W.10
::
Tr.Sitarasu
P.W.11
::
Tmt. Malleeswari (Revenue Inspector)
P.W.12
::
Tr. Karthick
P.W.13
::
Tr.Devid Joseph Paulraj
P.W.14
::
Tr.Sakthivel (GradeI Police Officer)
….39.
P.W.15
::
Tr.Chandru (Investigating Officer)
On the side of the accused: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution:
Exhibit
Date
Particulars
Ex-P. 1
19.01.2020
Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2
11.03.2020
Toxicological Report (TOX.H.No.110/2020)
Ex-P. 3
20.01.2020
Postmortem Certificate (PM.No.88/2020)
Ex-P. 4
19.01.2020
Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 5
20.01.2020
Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.6
20.01.2020
Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.7
20.07.2012
Copy of the prepaid customer information form for the mobile No. 9962148358
Ex-P.8
…
Copy of the Call details records for the Mobile No. 9962148358
Ex-P.9
01.10.2020
Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the Mobile No. 9962148358
Ex-P.10
…
Copy of the Call details records entry in ExP.8 dated
19.01.2020 time 11:56:29
Ex-P.11
…
Copy of the Call details records entry in ExP.8 dated
19.01.2020 time 12:03:32
Ex-P.12
27.04.2016
Ailtel prepaid enrollment form in the name of
….40.
Pattibandala Pensala Prasath (Accused)
Ex-P.13
…
Call details for the mobile number 7395977841
Ex-P.14
…
Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the Mobile No. 7395977841
Ex-P.15
(Series)
…
Call details records entry in ExP.13 dated 19.01.2020 time 09:30:42
Call details records entry in ExP.13 dated
19.01.2020 time 09:37:45 (Two entries)
Ex-P.16
…
Call details records entry in ExP.13 dated
19.01.2020 time 11:38:15 and 12:01:31 (2 entries)
Ex-P.17
…
Call details records entry in ExP.13 dated
18.01.2020 time 22:00:47
Call details entry dated 19.01.2020 time 022:07:22 (2 entries)
Ex-P.18
…
Call details records entry dated 19.01.2020 time 04:23:38
Ex-P.19
19.01.2020
First Information Report (C 10035071)
Ex-P.20
19.01.2020
Rough sketch
Ex-P.21
19.01.2020
Inquest Report
Ex-P.22
20.01.2020
Alteration Report
Ex-P.23
20.01.2020
Form95 (3 feet length Washing machine hose tube/pipe)
Ex-P.24
…
Photographs of the deceased
Ex-P.25
20.01.2020
Certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian
Evidence Act produced by photographer Tr.Kanthan
….41.
On the side of accused: NIL
List of Material Objects Marked:
On the side of Prosecution:
Exhibit No.
Particulars
P.M.O.1
3 feet length washing machine hose tube/pipe
On the side of the Accused: Nil
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
// TRUE COPY //
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
….42.
