LAWS(SC)-1999-9-166

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAJENDRAN

Decided On September 22, 1999
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Appellant
V/S
RAJENDRAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, against the acquittal of the respondent in Death Reference Case No. 2 of 1995, arising out of Sessions Case No. 169 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 302 for having murdered his wife and two children brutally and sentenced him to death. On a reference being made under Section 366 of the Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the death sentence, the High Court did not confirm the sentence of death and on the other hand acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him and thus the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that the accused and deceased Jayalakshmi were married together about eight years prior to the date of occurrence in 1994. Out of their wedlock, two female children had been born named Jeeva, aged six years and Sita, aged two years. The accused was not having any job and was solely dependant on his wife, the deceased. He had the habit of taking liquor and for that purpose he used to often demand money from the deceased and used to assault her. On the very date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at about 7 p. m. and it continued till about 9 p.m. PW 1, a close-by neighbour however interfered and pacified, whereupon, she returned to her house which was hardly 150 feet away from the house of the accused. PW 4 was present there in the house of PW 1 and was sleeping. Suddenly, he heard the cries of the eldest daughter of the deceased and when he came out, he found that the hut of the accused was on fire. PW 1 and PW 4 then came near the house of the accused, whereupon PW 4 entered into the hut of the accused by jumping from the roof and rescued the eldest daughter. By that time, wife of the accused and the youngest daughter Sita had already become victims and had met their death. PW 4 then took the eldest daughter to the Government Hospital at Thuraiyur. PW 1 went to her father PW 2 and narrated the incident. This was recorded by PW 2 and was sent to the Padalur Police Station. The further prosecution case is that PW 5 met the accused on 11-4-94 at the bus stop and on questioning the accused about the setting fire of his house, he had stated that the deceased refused to serve meals to him and was also not giving money and as he had doubts about her chastity, so on the previous night he strangulated the deceased and has killed her. He also further said that he poured kerosene on the dead body of the deceased and set fire to the body. The eldest daughter, Jeeva was examined by doctor PW 8 and extensive burn injuries on her person were found. She however died in the hospital on 11-4-94 at 7 p.m. The Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of statement received from PW 2, registered a case under Sections 436 and 302, I.P.C. and started investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet and on being committed, the accused stood his trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, relied upon the circumstances established by the prosecution witnesses and came to hold that it is the accused who is the perpetrator of the crime and, therefore, convicted him under Section 302 as well as Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Looking to the aggravating circumstances under which the murder was committed and in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, he sentenced the accused to death and made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the Cr. P. C. for his conviction under Section 302 and for his conviction under Section 436, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It may be stated that the accused himself did not prefer any appeal against the conviction and sentence. The High Court however in the impugned Judgment without examining the circumstances said to have been established by the prosecution evidence and without examining the conclusion of the learned trial Judge in a most slipshod manner, by coming to some conclusions abruptly on the peripheral issue, ultimately came to hold that the doubtful circumstances impels to give benefit of doubt to the accused and thus acquitted the accused.

(3.) Mr. Pragasam, the learned counsel, appearing for the State, seriously contended that a bare reading of the impugned Judgment of the High Court would indicate that the High Court has not discharged its duty as a Court of appeal and instead of focusing its attention to the prosecution evidence, establishing different circumstances and instead of finding whether ultimate conclusion of the learned trial Judge on those circumstances can at all be sustained or not, has given benefit of doubt to the accused on mere surmises and, therefore the said order of acquittal cannot be sustained. Mr. Pragasam further contended that no doubt there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case, therefore, depends upon the circumstantial evidence which would mean combination of facts creating a net without there being any tear through which the accused can escape. In a case of circumstantial evidence, what is necessary to be examined by a Court is whether the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn have been proved and such circumstances whether are of such conclusive nature that, it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The High Court as Court of appeal, while entertaining a death reference no-doubt has full powers to go into the evidence and come to his conclusion one way or the other on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. But the High Court cannot on mere surmises and conjectures without applying its mind to the specific conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on record can reverse the conviction by examining some peripheral issues and then abruptly come to a conclusion that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and found to have been established by the learned Sessions Judge have not even been enumerated in the impugned Judgment and, therefore the Judgment of acquittal is wholly unsustainable in law.