ELUMALAI ALIAS CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1995 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused / appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder: (a) THE marriage of Chandrasekaran (accused) and Anjalai (deceased) was performed four months prior to the date of occurrence. THEy were residents of Adi Dravider Colony, Solangunam, Gingi Taluk. From the date of their marriage, both the accused and the deceased were living in the house of parents of the deceased Anajalai. Though their marriage was performed because of their love affairs, however, they were not happy thereafter. On 11/12. 07. 1993, at about 12. 30 a. m. (mid night), the deceased Anjalai committed suicide and on seeing the same the accused came out and raised a hue and cry. This was informed to the Village Menial S. Kutta Nadanthan (PW. 2), who informed the same to P. W. 1, the Village Administrative Officer, Solangunam Village . Based on the information of PW. 2, PW. 1 - V. A. O. Visited the scene of occurrence at around 1. 30 p. m. on 12. 07. 1993 and noticed that the body of the deceased was lying on the floor. He also noticed a half portion of the saree was hanging from the wooden log. After enquiry, PW. 1 prepared a report (Ex. P1) at 2. 30 p. m. , and sent the same to the Police Station through his another menial by name Kuppan. THE said complaint was acknowledged by the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW. 10) who registered a case of suspicious death in Crime No. 187 of 1993. Since the death occurred within a period of four months from the date of marriage, the matter was intimated to the Sub-Collector, Gingi (PW. 11) who conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased between 11. 10 a. m. , and 1. 45 p. m. on 13. 7. 1993 in the presence of Panchayatars. Ex. P. 15 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, Panchayatars, namely Arunachalam, Damodharan, chakravarthy Pillai and two others as well as the parents of the deceased anjalai and Dhanam were present. PW. 3, father of the deceased, made a statement and the same was recorded by PW. 11. Ex. P. 16 is a statement of PW. 3. P. W. 11 also enquired and obtained a statement from the accused. PW. 11 sent the body for post-mortem along with Ex. P-4 requisition. P. W. 11 also prepared a report ex. P. 17. (b) P. W. 6 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital , Gingee. On receipt of Ex. P.-4 requisition, on 13. 7. 1993 at about 4. 00 p. m. he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Anjalai and issued Ex. P-6 post-mortem certificate. ( c ) Even prior to the visit of PW. 11, based on Ex. P. 14, pw. 12 - Inspector of Police, inspected the scene of occurrence at 6. 30 a. m. , on 13. 07. 1993. He prepared Observation Mahazar Ex. P2 in the presence of PW. 2 and kuppan. THEreafter, he was waiting for the investigation by PW. 11 and on his arrival, PW. 12 continued the investigation. He also recovered Material Objects 1 to 3 under Mahazar Ex. P3 in the presence of PW. 2 and Kuppan. He obtained statements from PW. 1, PW. 3, PW. 4, PW. 5 and others. After visiting the Hospital at Gingi, based on Ex. P. 6, he altered the FIR into one under Section 302 IPC and sent Express Report Ex. P. 21. THE altered FIR was sent to Court and also higher authorities. THE accused was arrested opposite to the Police Station at 7. 00 p. m. , on 13. 07. 1993 and produced before the Court. On 14. 07. 1993, he received chemical analyst's report; he enquired PW. 9 and obtained his statement and after completing the enquiry, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC on 23. 02. 1995. (d) THE prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses as PW. 1 to PW. 12, marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 21 and also produced Mos. 1 to 5. When the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence, he denied the same and he has not examined any witness on his side. (e) THE learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, accepted the case of prosecution and found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.

(3.) COMING to the first contention relating to delay in filing complaint to the Police, it is seen from the materials placed that the accused and the deceased were living in a thatched shed belonging to PW. 3, though they had some misunderstanding. The fact remains, after having love affairs with the deceased, the accused married her. It is the case of prosecution that on 12. 07. 1993, when PW. 1 VAO, Solangunam Village was in the process of collection of kist, PW. 2 Kutta Nadanthan, his menial came to him around 12. 00 noon and informed him that Anjalai, wife of Chandrasekaran, committed suicide. PW. 1 in his chief examination has stated, On receipt of the information, PW. 1 rushed to the spot along with another menial Kuppan around 1. 30 p. m. and saw the body of the deceased lying on the floor inside the hut. He sent a report Ex. P. 1 to the police (Valathi Police Station) through Kuppan at 2. 30 p. m. , Though PW. 1 has stated that a Police Constable came to the scene at 5. 00 p. m. , he has not enquired any one and left the scene stating that it is a matter to be enquired by Sub-Collector. According to PW. 1, the Officers came to the spot only at 6. 00 a. m. , on the next day. Ex. P. 1 given by PW. 1 was registered in Valathi Police station in Crime No. 174 of 1993 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. , i. e. , suspicious death on 12. 07. 1993 at 16. 00 hours. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is a delay of 16. 00 hours in lodging complaint to the police. Though Pws. 1 and 2, the responsible Officers, namely, V. A. O. , and an Assistant to him, received intimation at 12. 00 noon on 12. 07. 1993, they have chosen to intimate the same to the Police only at 4. 00 p. m. There is no explanation from anyone of them for the delay. PW. 3 - father of the deceased, PW. 4- brother of PW. 3 and PW. 5 - wife of PW. 4 who were in the scene of occurrence, at the time of commission of the offence, admittedly did not make any effort either to inform VAO or to the Police Station, though the occurrence took place in the mid-night of 11/12. 07. 1993. Neither the parents, nor the Officers like pw. 1 and 2 - VAO and his Assistant - offered any explanation for not informing the police immediately after the occurrence or at least within a reasonable time. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for appellant, we hold that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which stood unexplained by the prosecution and it is fatal to the prosecution case.