CHINNASAMI ALIAS KOMUTTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Chinnaswami is he accused in S.C. No.41 of 1987, on the file of Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. He was tried and convicted for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts) for having committed the murder of his wife Savithiri (D-l) and one Gowri (D-2), His sister-in-law, on 7.12.1986 at 9.00 a.m.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows:(a) D-l Savithiri and D-2 Gowri are sisters, they are the daughters of P.W.1 Muniappan. D-l got married to the appellant. THEy had no issues. D-2 Gowri got married to one Nagarajan, who is the brother of the appellant. P.W.2 Sivam is a nephew of P.W.1. After marriage, D-1 and D-2 were living with their respective spouses at Panagamuthu Village. P.W.1 Muniappan, father of D-l and D-2, hails from Sikkathoranapettam Village. P.W.2 Sivam, was residing in the village called Chinnakummanur. All the villages are situate in and around the same area.(b) THE appellant owned about 9 acres of land in his village. Of which 3 acres situate at the eastern side and 6 acres of land situate at the western side. THEre were (kottahai'put up in both the lands. P.W.7 Perumal was also owning land, in which he put up a separate kottahai, just adjacent to the lands belonging to the appellant.(c) Five years prior to the date of occurrence, the said Nagarajan, brother of the appellant committed suicide, due to the immoral behaviour of his wife D-2-Gowri, Subsequent to his death, D-2 Gowri, with her two female children lived in the house of the appellant.(d) Due to the ill-advise of D-2, D-l also lead on immoral life. In course of time, D-2 had developed illicit intimacy with one Kanakaraj P.W.5 who was the President of the local village. THErefore, she was reprimanded by the appellant, and she was asked not to continue her illicit affairs with the said Nagarajan. Despite that, the intimacy continued, for which, a Panchayat was convened. In the panchayat, panchayatdars sufficiently warned D-l, and asked her to live peacefully with her husband, the appellant herein, without having any further affairs with P.W.5 Kanakaraj.(e) On 6.12.1986, at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.2 went to the village of P.W.1, and requested to help him by providing some funds for doing agricultural operations. P.W.1 said that he did not have any money, and so, he told him that they could got to the house of D-1 and get some amount from her. P.W.2 stayed for the night in the house of P.W.1.(f) Next day i.e., on 7.12.1986, at about 5.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the Panagamuthu village, and went to the house of the appellant, where they found the house locked. THErefore, they went to western Side, in order to meet D-l It was at about 9.00 a.m. D-l Savithiri was proceeding towards west in the bund. THE appellant was found going behind her at a distance of 5 to 6 feet, with M.O.1 koduval in his hand. When they were proceeding towards west, the appellant was found scolding D-l. Suddenly, the appellant caught hold of the tuff of D-1, and inflicted injuries on the neck of D-l, by giving repeated cuts. D-l fell down and died at the spot.(g) THEreafter, the appellant with M.O.1 koduval, went eastern side towards 'kolla kottahai'wherein D-2 was found available. On seeing the ghastly scene, both P.Ws.1 and 2 ran after the appellant, in order to catch hold of him. However, in the mean time, the appellant went inside the kottahai and attacked D-2 by causing injuries on her neck. On receipt of the injuries, D-2 also fell down, and died at the spot.(h) When P.Ws.1 and 2 cried and shouted at the ap-pellant, the appellant threatened both P.Ws.1 and 2, and threw the weapon - M.O.1, near the dead body of D-2 Gowri and fled away from the scene of occurrence. On seeing the shocking incident, in which his two daughters were done to death, P.W.1 came to the side of the dead body of D-l, and fell fainted. P.W.2 was sitting in the same place.(i) At about 11.00 a.m., the appellant went to Saparthi village, where the jurisdiction village Administrative Officer was living. When he saw P.W.4 Jothimani, in the village an active member of a political party, and who was also already known to the appellant, he went and told him that in the morning he committed the murder of his wife and sister-in-law, due to his wife's immoral behaviour, and came there in order to surrender before the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.4 who was waiting there, for getting a bus to go to Krishnagiri, advised him to go to Kaveripattinam Village Administrative Officer, since on that date, the Village Administrative Officer for the jurisdiction village viz., Saparthi, was on leave.(j) As per the advise of P.W.4, the appellant came to Kaveripattinam village at about 1.00 p.m. In the office of the V.A.O., P.W.3 Palanisamy and P.W.8 Thangaraj were present. THE appellant gave statement to P.W.3 V.A.O., narrating the circumstances under which he committed the murder of his wife and his sister-in-law. THE said statement was reduced into writing by P.W.3 and the signature of the appellant was obtained therein. THE statement is Ex.P-1. THE appellant was found wearing bloodstained shirt M.O.2 and bloodstained lungi-M.O.3.(k) After recording the statement, P.W.3 - V.A.O., in order to verify the statement, after handing over the custody of the appellant to the village menial in the office, went to Panagamuthu village, and found the dead bodies of both D-l and D-2, with bleeding injuries on their neck. P.W.1, the father of the deceased was also found lying down at the spot, and P.W.2 was also present there. THEreafter, P.W.3 went back to his office at Kaveripattinam, and prepared his report Ex.P-2.(l) Along with these documents, P.W.3 V.A.O., took the appellant to Kaveripattinam Police station, and handed over these documents - Exs.P-1 and P-2 and the appellant to P.W.13 Head Constable at about 3.00 p.m. On the basis of Exs.P-1 and P-2, P.W.13, registered the case in Cr.No.422 of 1986, for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. THEn he prepared Ex.P-17 F.I.R. P.W.13 arrested the appellant and recovered M.O.2 bloodstained shirt M.O.3 bloodstained lungi, M.O.4 banian and M.O.5 trouser from the appellant under Ex.P-3 mahazar. THE appellant also put his signatures in the said documents, and the mahazar was attested by P.W.

(3.) MR.M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, representing MR.Raviraja Pandian, appearing for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence, and strenuously contended that there are various infirmities in the case of prosecution, that the trial court itself disbelieved the evidence of so called eye witness - P.Ws.1 and 2, and that the only evidence available against the appellant is the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before P.W.3 - V.A.O., which also is full of infirmities, and that therefore, the prosecution case bristles with inherent improbabilities and incurable infirmities, and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, since there is a serious doubt arises in the circumstances stated supra.