SMT SELVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant questions her conviction for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. recorded by the Sessions Judge, Madurai. It was alleged that she had committed the murder of one Palanisamy on 21.9.1996 at 1.00 p.m. in the fields of Ravindran at Kutladampatti, Madurai District.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 23.9.1996, P.W.5, Govindammal found a floating body in the well and she went to the landlord of that field, P.W.4 Ravindran and told him. Both of them then are said to have gone to P.W.1, who is the Village Administrative Officer and thereafter lodged a report to Vadipatti Police Station on the same day. In the report, it was suspected that this murder was committed by one Chinnakkalai alias Valayapatti Nallu, who was the watch guard of the adjacent "thottam" belonging one Venkitasamy Reddiar. It was suspected that the accused had developed illicit intimacy with the said Chinnakkalai. It was revealed that the body belonged to one Palanisamy and this Palanisamy also was not the husband of the accused, but she was living with him for about four years in the "thottam" (grove) belonging to P.W.4, Ravindran. THE prosecution alleged that she was not married to Palanisamy and was in fact married to one Velu, whom she had forsaken in favour of the deceased. THE prosecution alleges that after the report was given, which was recorded by the Sub Inspector, the investigation began.

(3.) IT must be remembered that the extra judicial confession would have very little evidentiary value and it was rightly argued by the learned counsel that it is not known as to how the name of this person became known to the police and that how that his statement came to be recorded by the police. IT seems that his statement was recorded on 23.9.1996 at the time of inquest. IT is not known why this witness went for the inquest and how is it that he was called for the inquest. This witness has not given any explanation in that behalf. The learned Sessions Judge has treated the evidence of this witness in a extremely casual manner. After all, the meeting of this witness with the accused was also an absolutely chance meeting. That apart, the only other witness, who was a witness to such confession having been made, Pandi, has not been examined by the police at all. All these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, were clinching enough to reject the evidence of the extrajudicial confession. We agree with the learned counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, tried to say that this witness became available even at the time of the recording of the inquest and that is where he has given the information to the police. We fail to follow as to what was this witness doing from the day when he came to know about the murder and why did he wait till his statement was recorded only at the time of holding the inquest i.e., on 23.9.1996. If these two circumstances are ignored, then there would be literally nothing against the accused.