ASOKAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of one Sessions Trial, wherein the four accused persons viz. Rajammal Accused No. 1, Balasubramaniam Accused No. 2, Murugesan Accused No. 3 and Asokan Accused No. 4 stood charged for different offences. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, Rajammal, Balasubramaniam and Murugesan were charged under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. 498-A, I.P.C. and 201, I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 stood further charged under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Accused No. 4 was charged under Section 498-A, I.P.C. alone. Prosecution case in nutshell is that Accused No. 4 Ashokan is the husband of deceased-Porkodi and they were married on 24th of March, 1985. A-1 and A-3 are the parents of Asokan and A-2 is his younger brother. It was alleged that on 18-6-1985 at 10 a.m. in furtherance of their common intention, they committed murder of deceased- Porkodi by manual strangulation and the motive behind the strangulation was that the demand of dowry was not satisfied by the parents of the deceased. It was also alleged that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by making unlawful demand and further after causing the murder of the deceased-Porkodi, the accused persons attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence by setting up a case that Porkodi had committed suicide. The defence is one of denial. Prosecution examined several persons to establish the charges against the accused persons. PWs-3 and 4 are the two witnesses who were residing upstairs of the house, where the accused persons were residing and the incident itself occurred. According to the evidence of PWs-3 and 4 at 10.30 a.m., on the date of occurrence the noise of deceased-Porkodi was heard and soon thereafter accused Balasubramaniam (A-2) came upstairs and wanted them to come down since his mother wanted so. When they went downstairs, they found accused Rajammal, Balasubramaniam and Murugesan were in the room, next to the hall and Porkodi was lying on the ground with the face upward and there were injuries on her neck. While Rajammal, initially told that her daughter-in-law had committed suicide by hanging but on being further questioned, the accused persons told that they had committed mistake unknowingly but if any people ask PWs.-3 and 4, then they should tell that she has committed suicide by hanging and they were pleading to save them. Soon thereafter, PW-4 left the house for office. PW-14, who is the neighbour, also heard the death news of Porkodi and came out of his house, when Balasubramaniam conveyed him that she died on account of heart attack. In the meanwhile, PW-11 had come to the house of the accused to meet Murugesan, but he found the house to be locked from inside and when he knocked the door, it is the Balasubramaniam, who opened it. A-1 Rajammal was also standing near him and Murugesan asked PW-11 to come after two or three days. Asokan was working in Ashok Leyland Workshop and was not available in the house and he was only informed by Murugesan about the death of Porkodi. He, therefore, left the factory and came back to his house. Balasubramaniam in the meanwhile came to the house of PW-7 and told him that Porkodi had a heart attack and her condition was serious. On getting such information, PWs 1, 2 and 7 left for the house of the deceased and found Porkodi lying dead. They also found contusions on both sides of her neck and when PW-1 asked the accused persons as to what had happend, the reply was that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging. PW-1, however, entertained some doubt as to the cause of death and, therefore, went to Tiruvottiyur Police Station along with PW-2 and lodged a report, which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector PW-22 and the said Sub-Inspector registered a case of suspicious death. The Police Officer then sent information to the Tahsildar and then left for the scene of occurrence and on reaching the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map and also made some seizure. The Tahsildar PW-21, arrived at the place of occurrence at 4 p.m. and held inquest over the dead body and made some inquiry. In course of such inquiry, he examined PWs-2, 3 and 8 and then after making inquest Report as per Exh. P. 16 he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW-22, thereafter made some seizure and then PW-23 the Inspector of Police arrived at the scene of occurrence. He examined PWs-1 and 7, who were present. He also made some seizure. PW-4 who had left for his house, soon after the occurrence, came back at 11.30 p.m. and the accused 1, 2 and 3 informed PW-4 that they have informed Tahsildar about the fact that Porkodi has committed suicide by hanging. Doctor PW-5, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found two injuries and there was no evidence of any ligature mark around the neck. He gave the opinion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation (throttling) and death must have been almost instantaneous. After receipt of the post-mortem report, Exh. P-4 and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency altered the case to one under Sections 498-A and 302, I.P.C. the materials during investigation having revealed that the death has occurred on account of non-payment of dowry, The District Registrar accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as per Exh. P-20. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, realising the seriousness of the crime, took up the investigation and re-examined many of the witnesses, already examined and finally charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302/34, 201, 498-A of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge, after a thorough scanning of the entire evidence, came to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 498-A as well as Section 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No. 1 Rajammal and Accused No. 3 Murugesan and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34, R.I. for 6 months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, R.1. for three years for the offence under Section 498-A and three years' R.I. for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. with the further direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Accused No. 2 Balasubramaniam, however, was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted of all the charges. The only charge under Section 498-A to A-4 Asokan was held not to have been established and A-4 was also acquitted accordingly. While the two convicted accused persons namely A-1 and A-3 preferred appeals, assailing their conviction and sentence, the State also preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of A-2 and A-4. The informant also had preferred a revision against the order of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge as against A-2 and A-4 and all these appeals and the revision were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court. The conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 3 was upheld and their appeal stood dismissed. The acquittal of Balasubramaniam A-2 was set aside so far as the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 is concerned and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the conviction under Sections 302/34 and three years' R.I. for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. The order of acquittal under Section 498-A, however, was upheld, so far as Accused A-2 Balasubramaniam is concerned. So far as Accused A-4 is concerned, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for three years and thus all the four accused persons are in this Court in three different appeals.

(3.) Mr. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants contended that the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, so far as Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 4 are concerned inasmuch as the sound and convincing reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting them have not been adverted to and this has vitiated the impugned order of conviction. According to Mr. Natarajan, there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment, so far as husband-Asokan is concerned, and therefore, his conviction is wholly unwarranted in law. The learned counsel further contended so far as the conviction of A-1 and A-3 are concerned, though the High Court affirmed the same, yet in view of the earlier statement of the witnesses before the Tahsildar, Accused No. 3 undoubtedly, deserves separate consideration and it must be held that the subsequent version is an exaggerated version by roping in Accused No. 3 also, and consequently the conviction of Accused No. 3 is liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel also further urged that the delayed examination of the witnesses by the Police affect their substantive evidence in Court and the entire case must be viewed with suspicion. The learned counsel also contended that an undue interest has been shown by CB. C.I.D. and it is only thereafter, witnesses have made improvement in their version and prosecution case must fail on that score.