MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANI, the appellant, was convicted for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. for having caused the death of his wife Kumari alias jayakumari and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE facts that are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- " (a ) THE deceased Kumari alias Jayakumari is the wife of the accused Mani. THEy got married two years prior to the occurrence. THEy were residing at Pallikuppam Village . Despite lapse of two years, no child was born to them because of which they used to quarrel with each other. (b) On 28. 7. 1998 at 1. 00 p. m. the accused came to the house and the deceased asked him to take lunch for which the accused refused. When the deceased insisted him to take food, he scolded her and beat her with hands and legs and thereafter, he went away. As she was unable to bear the pain due to his beating, she was lying down inside the house. A few hours later, i. e. , around 3. 00 p. m. , the accused came back to the house and on seeing the deceased lying down, he poured kerosene on her and set fire. When she raised alarm, neighbours gathered there. On seeing the crowd, the accused pretended as if he is making an attempt to put off the fire. In that process, he also sustained injuries on his left hand and legs. (c) P. W. 3 Murugesan, P. W. 6 Poongavanam, sister of the accused and P. W. 7 Chinnaponnu immediately made arrangements to take both to the Gudiyatham Government Hospital in an auto rickshaw. P. W. 9 Dr. Thirugnanam, attached to Gudiyatham Government Hospital , admitted the deceased and gave treatment. When the Doctor enquired the deceased, she told him that while she was cooking, a lamp fell down on the ground and got broken because of which, she sustained injuries. He issued Ex. P. 3 - Accident Register. At 7. 15 p. m. , P. W. 9 - Doctor examined the accused and he told him that when he attempted to put off the fire on his wife, he sustained injuries and Ex. P. 4 is the Accident Register. Immediately thereafter, P. W. 9 sent Ex. P. 5 intimation to the police at 7. 00 p. m. about the admission of the deceased. He also sent Ex. P. 6 intimation to the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, to visit the hospital for recording dying declaration of the deceased. (d) On receipt of the same at 3. 00 p. m. on 29. 7. 1998, p. W. 17 Sub-Inspector of Police came to the hospital at about 5. 30 p. m. and recorded the complaint of the deceased and Ex. P. 14 is the complaint. THEreafter, he went back to the Station and registered a case in Crime no. 364/1998 under Section 307 I. P. C. at 7. 00 p. m. and Ex. P. 15 is the First information Report. (e) On receipt of the intimation Ex. P. 6, the Judicial magistrate, Gudiyatham, went to the hospital on 30. 7. 1998 at 10. 40 a. m. and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased after observing all formalities during which time P. W. 18 Dr. K. Anbarasi was also present. Ex. P. 16 is the dying declaration attested by the Doctor. (f) In the meantime, on 29. 7. 1998 at 7. 15 p. m. , P. W. 20 Dhanaraj, Inspector of Police, took up investigation and at 9. 30 p. m. he went to the hospital and recorded the statements of the deceased as well as the accused and other witnesses. (g) On 30. 7. 1998 at 7. 00 p. m. , P. W. 20 went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar - Ex. P. 1 and rough sketch Ex. P. 17 in the presence of witnesses and recovered M. O. 1 Kerosene lamp, M. O. 2 lamp, M. O. 3 Plastic Kerosene Can and other material objects. (h) On 01. 8. 1998 at 2. 30 a. m. , P. W. 20 received the death intimation of the deceased from the hospital. THE deceased died at 7. 45 p. m. on 31. 7. 1998. P. W. 20 went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 7. 00 a. m. and 10. 30 a. m. and Ex. P. 19 is the inquest report. THEn, he sent the body for postmortem. (i) P. W. 11 Dr. Karthikeyan conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased at 12. 00 p. m. on 01. 8. 1998 and Ex. P. 9 is the Postmortem certificate wherein the Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Septicemia on the basis of which the offence was altered into one under section 302 IPC. (j) On the very same day, i. e. , on 01. 8. 1998, P. W. 20 arrested the accused and sent him for remand. He continued the investigation. THE material objects were sent for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, he filed the final report against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. (k) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 20 were examined; Exs. P-1 to P-19 were filed and M. Os. 1 to 11 were marked. (l) THE accused denied having participated in the occurrence, while he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. and he pleaded innocence. (m) THE trial Court, relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal".

(3.) WE now come to Ex. P. 14 statement recorded by P. W. 17. On perusal, it is clear that a detailed statement has been given by the deceased. Ex. P. 14, in our view, is doubtful because on receipt of intimation ex. P. 5 from the Doctor P. W. 9, P. W. 17 went to the hospital and recorded the complaint Ex. P. 14 from the deceased. In the cross-examination, he admitted that before recording statement, he verified Ex. P. 3 and Ex. P. 4 and found that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased while cooking were entered in the accident Register and since he did not believe the said contents, he chose to record statement from the deceased. He also admitted that he sent requisition to the Judicial Magistrate to record the dying declaration. That means, he suspected that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not due to accident, but due to some other reasons. If that was so, P. W. 17 would have examined the deceased in the presence of a Doctor, who is available in the hospital. There is no reason as to why such a statement had been obtained without the presence of the Doctor. Further, in Ex. P. 14, he obtained the signature of the deceased. There is no reason as to how Ex. P. 16, the next document recorded by the judicial Magistrate on 30. 7. 1998, would contain the left thumb impression of the deceased. Admittedly, there are injuries on the hands of the deceased. When the deceased was not able to put signature and put thumb impression in Ex. P. 16, it is not understandable as to how she was able to put signature in Ex. P. 14, the statement recorded on the previous day.