BHASKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in a case of murder, where he stood accused of committing murder of his three children, found guilty under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. (3 counts) and awarded life sentence, which shall run concurrently, by the Court of Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu, has brought forth this appeal challenging the judgment.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: (a) THE appellant/accused was living with his wife and three children along with his parents in Sunguvarchatram. He wanted to take a separate residence, since the house was crowded, to which course his wife was not amenable. THEreafter, he took a small room, which was attached to a tea shop, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/ -. His wife suspected that he had got any illicit intimacy with somebody in view of his taking a separate residence. On 9. 10. 1995, there was a quarrel between the spouses as usual. Pursuant thereto, he took a decision to commit suicide and to kill all the three children. According to his plan, at about 7. 10 P. M. , he took all the three children namely Brundha, Harinath and Swetha, in a cycle to Erayamangalam Village , and thereafter, he went to Naicken Kuttai where he took the children inside the pond upto his chest level and immersed them. THEn, leaving all of them, he went to Mappedu and tried to get a rope in the shop of P. W. 6; but, he could not. At the time when he was returning, P. W. 4 the father of the accused, along with his friend P. W. 3, were coming in search of the children and questioned him about the children. At that time, the accused was telling them that he killed the children by immersing them in water. THEn, all of them went to Naicken Kuttai, took the children out of the pond and brought them to the village. P. W. 1, the village Administrative Officer of that place, on coming to know about the same through his menial P. W. 2, at about 10. 00 P. M. , rushed to the house of the appellant/accused, where he found the dead bodies of all the three children. At that time, the appellant gave a confessional statement, which was recorded by p. W. 1. Ex. P1 is the statement given by the accused. Immediately, P. W. 1 took ex. P1 along with his special report Ex. P2, to Mappedu Police Station, where p. W. 8 the Sub Inspector of Police, was present, and handed over them to P. W. 8. On the strength of Exs. P1 and P2, P. W. 8 registered a case in Crime No. 387/95 under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. at witching hour. Printed First Information Report ex. P16 was sent to Court. (b) P. W. 9, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of the First Information Report, took up the case for investigation and proceeded first to the house of the appellant/accused, where he prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P3, in the presence of witnesses and a rough sketch ex. P17. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. THEn, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies of three children in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Exs. P18, P19 and P20 the inquest reports respectively. He, then, proceeded to Naicken Kuttai the next morning, made an inspection and prepared Ex. P4, the observation mahazar, and Ex. P21, the rough sketch. (c) Pursuant to the requisition Ex. P8, given by the investigating Officer, P. W. 7, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the government Hospital, Thiruvallore, conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of three children. So far as the deceased Harinath is concerned, the postmortem certificate issued by the Doctor, is marked as Ex. P9. Ex. P12 is the postmortem certificate issued by him in respect of the deceased Swetha. THE postmortem certificate issued by the Doctor in respect of the deceased Brindia, is marked as Ex. P14. THE viscera were sent to Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis. Accordingly, they were subjected to chemical analysis, and the viscera reports in respect of the three children were received, which were marked as Exs. P10, P11 and P13 respectively. THEreafter, the Doctor has given his final opinion that all the three children would appear to have died of drowning. (d) During investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused at about 2. 30 P. M. and produced him before the Court for remand. P. W. 10, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the final report against the appellant/accused.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that all the witnesses who were examined in respect of the motive part and all other aspects, have turned hostile; that the menial who was examined as P. W. 2, and who according to the prosecution, informed to P. W. 1 the Village Administrative Officer (V. A. 0), has also turned hostile, and thus, the only evidence what was available for the prosecution was that of P. W. 1; that according to the prosecution, P. W. 1 went to the house of the appellant/accused, where the accused gave a confessional statement marked as Ex. P1; that the evidence of P. W. 1 and Ex. P1 the statement, alleged to have been given by the appellant/accused, do not inspire any confidence at all, and they are shrouded with suspicious circumstances; that in the instant case, according to P. W. 1, the V. A. O. , he is ailing from a nearby place, where he is having residence, and he used to come to the Office by 9. 00 A. M. and return to his native by 4. 30 P. M. , and on the date of occurrence, it was P. W. 2, who came to his office at about 11. 00 P. M. and informed him, which is highly impossible; that apart from that, it was P. W. 2, the menial, who took P. W. 1 to the house of the appellant/accused; but, P. W. 2 has turned hostile; that according to P. W. 1, he took the accused immediately along with Exs. P1 and P2 to the Police Station and produced him before the Police Officials; but, as per the evidence of the investigating Officer, the accused was arrested by him the next day at 2. 30 p. M. ; that this inconsistency would go to the root of the matter, and under the circumstances, such a confessional statement could not have been recorded at all.