G SHYAMALA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the arrest card of the petitioner, prosecution has shown that she had abetted commission of murder of her husband, by her Driver Suria Babu, who is the other accused in this crime, Suria Babu was working as a Driver in the house-hold of the deceased. He was dismissed from service earlier. He is stated to have rejoined duty on 8-12-1992 after repenting for his past conduct. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at or about 8.30 p.m. on 15-12-1992, inside the residence of the petitioner and the deceased. Admittedly petitioner was not inside the house at the time of the commission of this crime. She had entered her residence on only later to witness the other accused (driver) leaving the house. When she questioned her driver, he had beaten her also with a cot-frame on her head and hands. Fearing further attack, she locked herself inside a room and on hearing her hue and cry, her neighbour, who is a pump-man by profession, is stated to have complained to the Police, who thereafter rescued her. The First Information Report was preferred by the petitioner alleging that the assailant of her husband as well as herself was her Car Driver Suria Babu.

(2.) Petitioner was admitted in Madras Institute of Orthopaedic & Traumatology on 15-12-1992 and was discharged on 17-12-1992 against Medical Advice. At the time of admission, petitioner had a head injury with lacerated would over the left temporal and right parietal region, surgical emphysema, left temporal and left parietal, and parapharyngeal. There was a further lacerated injury in the first web space of the right hand. Lacerated injury was also noticed on the left index and ring fingers. Sutures were removed from these injuries on 29-12-1992. In the opinion of Dr. Mohandas, the injury sustained on the head by the petitioner was a grievous injury because X-Ray of the skull showed depressed fracture of the skull. Thereafter, on arrest of the petitioner, suspecting her involvement in the crime, on the statement of the co-accused, she was sent to prison. From the Central Prison, Madras, she was forwarded to Government General Hospital, Madras on 31-12-1992 where she was an impatient till 13-l-1993,when she was discharged. On directions of this Court, case record of this petitioner, was forwarded by the General Hospital. It is seen that the petitioner had suffered fracture on her hand as well, apart from depresses fracture of the skull, already described. There was dimness in her vision, for which as well, she was treated at the General Hospital. The nature of medical treatment, for the injuries sustained by her, prima facie, indicates that as claimed by the petitioner, she had also been attacked by Suria Babu, while he was on his way out after commission of this grave crime. Statement of Suria Babu was recorded on 18-12-1992 at Chinnapuram village near Masulipatnam in Andhra Pradesh. He was arrested at 3.00 a.m. on 18-12-1992. It is not disputed by the prosecution, that in pursuance of the statement of Suria Babu, no recovery was effected. If that be so, the statement of Suria Babu is not admissible in evidence and has no probative value whatever except probably to facilitate further investigation. In his statement Suria Babu has claimed that he had attacked the deceased only at the instance of the petitioner. Though more than a month has elapsed, since then learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly stated that no evidence has been collected to show that there was serious difference of opinion between the spouses which could have impelled the petitioner to be party for the commission of this crime. It appears that neighbours have been examined, but they do not seek to connect the petitioner with the crime, on the basis of her deep-seated a version or animosity towards her husband. All that the prosecution is able to state is that three days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the spouses regarding planting of saplings in the Farm House. Again the petitioner appears to have objected to the deceased selling a part of his land to his relations. These are usual quarrels in every household and as stated earlier, further motive evidence has not been collected in spite of serious effort by the Investigation Agency. Again it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioner and her husband were together on the occurrence day at or about 12.30 noon, in the car. It is not the prosecution case that there was any serious problem between these spouses which was the proximate cause for this crime. Even from the scene two wooden logs were recovered, one from the spot where the deceased was attacked and another from the venue where the petitioner was attacked by Suria Babu. The confession statement recorded at Andhra Pradesh is attested by two Madras witnesses. The prosecution would claim that on the statement of the petitioner, two rings belonging to her were recovered from the scene. It is not as though the petitioner pointed out those rings to be seized. After all they are her own rings. These rings, even if had been recovered, cannot be stated to be incriminating. Whatever it be, purely on the basis of lack of evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, I am inclined to enlarge her on bail on stringent conditions. It is not as though the prosecution did not have sufficient time to investigate further on me basis of the confession of the co-accused. More than thirty-one days have elapsed from the date of recording the confession of Suria Babu.

(3.) In that view, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties for a lump sum each to the satisfaction of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras and on further condition that soon after her release, she shall proceed to Coimbatore and reside at Coimbatore until further orders. She will notify her residence at Coimbatore to the releasing Magistrate as well as the Investigating Officer in this crime. Petitioner shall report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore every day at 10.30 a.m. and at 5.00 p.m. until further orders.