MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1986, on the file of Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, are the appellants in this appeal. They were convicted by learned Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to file imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. two years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 201 I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences should run concurrently.

(2.) The deceased Amudha was married to the first accused about eight years prior to the occurrence which event took place on 23-4-1984. They were residing in the village of Sungara Halli. They have a female child by name Sangeetha aged about six years at the time of occurrence. The second accused is the younger brother of the first accused. The relationship between the first accused and his wife Amudha were not cordial and they used to quarrel with each other very often. The deceased was also not in good terms with her mother-in-law. About two years prior to the occurrence there was a compromise under which the first accused and the deceased were asked to reside in a separate house and the parents of the first accused were asked to reside in the garden belonging to the village Munsif. However, they did not bring any solution and the first, accused was continuing to suspect to fidelity of his wife Amudha. The first accused started taking meals in his parents house rather than in his own house. After a period of six months from the date of compromise the parents of the accused came back to the village of Sungara Halli and were residing in the house of one Chinnaraj. During Pongal time in January, 1983, the first accused had beaten the deceased and had removed the 'thali' and her earring from the deceased. However, the villagers pacified the first accused and caused the return of the jewels to the deceased Amudha. The first accused went back to his parents and resided with them in the house of Chinnaraj. The deceased was given half-an acre of land by her mother and she eked out her livelihood by doing cooly work. From January, 1983, the first accused was not meeting the deceased. The first accused had a further grievance that the deceased was going to the village Bommidi during night hours and was acting as a prostitute. About a week prior to the occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. the second accused was talking to P.W. 1 (who has been given pardon under Section 316 Cc. P.C.) in the pial of the local school. The first accused came there and told them that the deceased was a prostitute and therefore, he felt terribly ashamed and he wanted to finish with her. P.W. 1 and the second accused advised the first accused not to undertake any such course but seek justice through the villagers. On the day of occurrence viz., 23-4-1994 at about 7.00 p.m. when P.W. 1 was taking meals, the first accused came there and told him that the deceased had gone to Bommidi with the female child. The first accused further stated that they could go there and bring her back and on the way she can be done away with. P.W. 1 again advised him not to do like that, but bring her to the village and talk over the matter. P.W. 1 however, said that he would come behind the accused. P.W. 1 proceeded in his cycle and both the accused were having only one cycle. Thereupon the first accused proceeded to the shop of P.W. 4 and took a cycle for hire. All the three proceeded in their cycles to Kavitha theatre at Bommidi. It is about five kilometers from Sungara Halli village. They found the deceased with her child in a petty shop belonging to P.W. 7 talking to a stranger. While the others were standing a far off the first accused alone talked to the deceased and brought her. The deceased along with her child were asked to sit in the cycle driven by the second accused and all of them proceeded to the village of Sungara Halli. On the way, they stopped at the hospital belonging to one Muniratnam. The first accused wanted to get some pills from the compounder for his stomach-ache. It was about 9.00 p.m. P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are younger cousin brothers of P.W. 1, were employed as compounders in the said hospital. The first accused went in and brought the pills and all of them continued their journey when they passed Omkalimman temple, the first accused stopped everybody and took the child from the deceased and gave it to P.W. 1 and asked P.W. 1 to take the child to the parents of the first accused. P.W. 1 proceeded to the village and after travelling a distance of one-quarter furlong he turned back to see what the accused and the deceased were doing. The first accused was taking the deceased towards a field belonging to Dr. Muniratnam and the second accused was following behind. A little later P.W. 1 heard the cries of the deceased. Since the child in his hand was also crying P.W. 1 pacified the child. A little later the first accused alone returned and when questioned he told P.W. 1 that he had finished off the deceased Amudha. The first accused took back the child from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 proceeded to the village and he could not sleep properly. On the early morning of 24-4-1984, he proceeded to Salem to see his ailing father. P.W. 3 is the father of the first and the second accused. He had turned hostile in the witness box, but according to his statement before police, on the night of 23-4-1984, the first accused came to the house with the child Sangeetha, and had woken up P.W. 3. When questioned the first accused told P.W. 3 that he had finished with the deceased Amudha. When further questioned, the accused is said to have told P.W. 3 that he could not bear the shame for too long a time and therefore, he had finished with the deceased. The first accused is said to have taken a coir-rope and went out of the house. P.W. 3 is said to have followed him and near the Omkalimman temple in the land of Dr. Muniratnam, he saw the deceased Amudha lying dead.

(3.) P.W. 2 an ex-village Munsif, is related to the accused. On 24-4-1984 at about 7.00 a.m. he was taking milk from his field to supply the same to the Society in the village. He heard that the deceased Amudha was hanging by a rope in a tamrind tree. He went and saw the place where the deceased was hanging and then proceeded to the house of Manickam Naidu who is a respected person of the village. They sent for the first accused and the first accused is said to have confessed to the whole crime and as to how he and his brother the second accused brought the deceased from Bommidi and near the Omakalimman temple in the road leading to the field of Dr. Muniaratnam, they took the deceased to a thorny bush, put a towel around her neck and tightened the same, that the second accused had caught hold of the hand of the deceased and the deceased was thus strangulated. The first accused then went to the house and brought a coir-rope and both A. 1 and A. 2 carried the body of the deceased alone with narrow-path to Regada Halli and hanged the body there in a tamrind tree situate near the land of Narasimha Reddy. P.W. 2 and the said Manicka Naidu then sent for the second accused and he also confessed to the crime in the same manner. Thereupon P.W. 2 and Manicka Naidu took both the accused to the Sub-Inspector of Bommidi Police Station (P.W. 15) and narrated the incident to P.W. 15. The same was taken and shown own as Ex. P. 1 and the signature of P.W. 2 and Manicka Naidu were obtained in the same. It was registered as a Crime No. 64 of 1984 under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. P.W. 15 prepared printed First Information Report, Ex. P-17 and sent the same to the Magistrate and higher authorities. The first accused came forward to give a confession statement, admissible portion of which is Ex. P-2. Further investigation was taken up by P.W. 16, Inspector (Law and Order), Harur Circle. He received information on telephone at about 12.30 p.m. from the Sub-Inspector. P.W. 15. P.W. 16 proceeded to Bommidi Police Station and reached there at 1.30 p.m. He received Ex. P. 17 and took up the investigation. He examined the accused 1 and 2 at the police station and perused Ex. P. 2. He took the accused and the witnesses to the place of occurrence. He also examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7. At the place of occurrence he prepared Ex. P-3 Mahazar attested by P.W. 2. He arranged photographs to be taken by P.W. 10. 'The photographs are M.O. 11 and the negatives are M.O. 10. He recovered M. Os. 1 and 2 series, the pieces of bangles found art the spot heir pin M.O. 3, one piece of brass drops. M.O. 4, a 50 paise coin, M.O. 5 under Mahazar, Ex. P. 4 attested by P.W. 2. The accused took P.W. 16 to their house and in the presence of their father P.W. 3 the house was searched. P.W. 16 recovered a rose colour towel, M.O. 21, a dhoti M.O. 22, a yellow colour shirt, M.O. 23, a cut banian, M.O. 24, a blue Shorts, M.O. 25, a bed-sheet M.O. 26, all of which were blood-stained. They were recovered under Ex. P. 19 arrested by P.Ws. 8 and 9. A copy Ex. P-19 was handed over to P.W. 3. He then proceeded to the place where the deceased was hanging and reached there by about 3.15 p.m. He prepared an observation Mahazar, Ex. P-5 and a sketch Ex. P-19. He found that below the body. The earth was bloodstained. He recovered the bloodstained earth M.O. 6 and sample earth M.O. 7 in the presence of the same witnesses under Mahazar Ex. P-6. He conducted an inquest on the body between 3.45 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. Ex. P. 20 is the inquest report. He had examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 at the inquest. With a requisition Ex. P-18 he handed over the body to the constable, P.W. 13 for the conduct of an autopsy. He examined more witnesses and at 8.00 p.m. he arrested P.W. 1 and recovered M. Os. 8 and 9 being cycles, under Ex. P-7 Mahazar attested by P.Ws. 8 and 9. He sent the Material Objects to the Magistrate. P.W. 11 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri and he received Ex. P-8 from P.W. 16 for conducting an autopsy on the body of the deceased. He commenced post-mortem at 11.50 a.m. on 25-4-1984. Ex. P-9 is the post-mortem certificate. He found the hyoid bone fractured on the left side. He reserved his final opinion till the report of the Chemical Examiner was obtained on the soft tissues of the skin bearing rope mark. Ex. P-10 is the report of the Chemical Examiner and it reads as follows :