SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, FTC No.II, Ranipet, made in S.C.No.162 of 2008 whereby the appellant stood charged under Sections 450, 398 read with 34, 302 and 382 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.450 IPC, 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.398 read with 34 IPC, life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.382 IPC.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Shanthi and is a practising lawyer. They were living at No.15, Post Office Street, Sholinghur. P.W.7, the daughter, and P.W.8, the son, were all residing at Bangalore during the relevant time. P.W.3 was working as a servant-maid in the house of P.W.1 for more than three decades. P.W.2 was working in a medical shop just opposite to the house of P.W.1. P.W.4 was residing in the next house to that of P.W.1. P.W.4 and the deceased Shanthi were moving closely. Shanthi used to take bath by 6'O Clock daily, go and do the house work. Whenever P.W.1 goes to the Court, the deceased used to stand and send him to the Court. (b) On the date of occurrence that was on 23.4.2004, P.W.1 as usual, went to the Court work. P.W.3 after finishing her work, left the place. At that time, the deceased alone was in the house. P.W.4 after doing her work on 23.4.2004, prepared some eatables in view of the birthday of the child and went to the house of the deceased and knocked the door, but it was not opened. Then she entertained a doubt and went to the backyard of the house which was kept open. She got inside and found the deceased lying. When she went near, she found her dead. M.O.2, chair, was found placed on her face. Then P.W.4 raised alarm, and P.Ws.2 and 5 rushed. They immediately informed to P.W.1, who rushed over there, and immediately took his wife in an auto of P.W.9 to the Government Hospital, where she was declared dead. (c) At about 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 went to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by one Anbazhagan, the Inspector of Police, who was on duty that time, in Crime No.271 of 2004 under Sections 454, 380 and 302 of IPC. The express FIR, Ex.P33, was despatched to the Court. (d) The said Inspector of Police Mr.Anbazhagan took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P34. Then he recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Shanthi in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P40. A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy. (e) The autopsy was conducted by P.Ws.10 and 11, the Assistant Surgeons, attached to the Government Hospital, Sholinghur, on the dead body of Shanthi and have issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P4, with their opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia probably due to strangulation. (f) Pursuant to the orders passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned, the investigation was taken up by the CB CID from 9.7.2004 onwards, and it was taken up by P.W.30, the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by one Kirubanandam, the Inspector of Police. He examined P.Ws.16, 17 and 18 and recorded their statements. (g) P.W.33, the Inspector of Police, attached to the CB CID, took up further investigation. He examined P.Ws.16 to 18 and recorded their statements. P.W.16 was also a co-convict. He was in prison along with A-1 and A-2. Also P.W.17 saw both A-1 and A-2 nearby the place of occurrence, and P.W.18 is the person to whom A-2, the appellant herein, gave a confessional statement. Following the same, A-1 was arrested on 2.3.2007. He gave a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded. Consequent upon the same, the material objects were recovered. He also identified A-2. A-2 was arrested on 7.3.2007. He gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. He was taken to P.Ws.24, 25 and 26 from whom M.O.1, bangles, M.Os.15 and 16, gold ingots, and M.O.17, motorcycle, were recovered pursuant to the confession of A-2 in the presence of P.W.22. They were sent for judicial remand. (h) Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, polygraph, brain mapping and NARCO analysis were conducted for A-1 and A-2, and reports were also received which were marked as Exs.P35 to P39 respectively. All the material objects were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department for the purpose of analysis, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P17, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P18, the serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) THE learned counsel commenting on the evidence of P.W.16, would submit that P.W.16 was actually in the prison that according to him, A-1 and A-2 were also in the same prison, and just 10 or 15 days prior to his coming out, they were actually brought in, and just one day prior to his coming out, both of them were telling about the occurrence in question and that this was considered by the trial Court and taken as an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by A-1 and A-2 to P.W.16. Commenting on the same, the learned Counsel would submit that P.W.16 himself was a convict that apart from that, he has categorically admitted that A-2 came out on bail even before he came out, and under the circumstances, there is no question of A-2 making any confession just one day prior to P.W.16 coming out of prison, and on that ground, it has got to be rejected.