STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. MANMATHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : The accused is a resident of Chockalingapuram. The deceased Mariammal was his wife. Their marriage had taken place ten years prior to the occurrence. (The occurrence was on 29.5.1990) The deceased and the accused have a son aged about eight years. The deceased was employed in a private establishment near her village. PW2 is her co-worker. The accused came to know that his wife was having an illicit affair with PW 2. Therefore, he warned his wife. However, the deceased continued her affair with PW2. Two weeks prior to the occurrence, on coming to know that the deceased and PW2 are happily spending their time in the plantain garden of Neerkathalingam, north of the village, the accused went there to catch them red-handed. Seeing his movements there, PW2 and the deceased parted company and moved away. On 25.5.1990, the deceased and PW2 were found sharing their bed in the very same plantain garden by PW3 and PW4. Both PWs 3 and 4 reprimanded them. Coming to know about this incident, the accused questioned his wife on 29.5.1990 and his wife flatly refused such an incident. There was an exchange of words between the two during which the accused abused the deceased stating that he had been put to shame on account of his wife's conduct and therefore, he must kill her. He wanted his wife to accompany him so that he could verify with PWs 3 and 4 about the incident on 25.5.1990 in her presence. With that object in his mind, the accused took his wife to the private establishment where she was working. Enroute, they found PW5 seated under a banvan tree. The deceased invited him to join them. However, the accused told PW5 not to accompany them. The deceased and the accused were proceeding towards north and they were passing a channel called "Vadi Kalvai" around 12 noon on that day. The deceased refused to proceed further towards the private establishment where she was working. She also told the accused at that time that she would move only like that with PW2 and if the accused is not willing for such a course, then she would rather go with PW2. Deciding that she should not be allowed to live any more, the accused fisted her and pushed her inside the channel. Pressing her inside the water, he picked up a white stone lying nearby and repeatedly attacked on her head with that stone resulting in injuries on the back side of her head, left ear and over the right cheek. Mariammal was bleeding through the injury on her head which stained the earth as well as her saree. When Mariammal was being pushed by the accused, she bit his right hand index finger as well as his right hand resulting in injuries to the accused. Thinking that Mariammal would die, the accused leaving Mariammal at the spot itself, rushed to the establishment where his younger brother Kasirajan was working and confessed to him that he had attacked his wife with a stone. The accused and Kasirajan immediately went to the scene of occurrence where they found Mariammal fighting for her life. Immediately, the accused and his younger brother put her in a cart and took her to the house where she was laid on the western side of the house. When Mariammal was being taken down from the cart, the shirt of the accused and his younger brother became blood-stained. Sometime later, Mariammal died. The accused thought of burning his wife's body secretly. However, his conscience did not permit him to do so which impelled him to disclose the truth to someone. Accordingly, he reached the office of PW 1, the Village Administrative Officer around 8 p.m. On 29.5.1990 where PW7 and the Panchayat President were there. In their presence the accused gave a confessional statement.

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