GANAPATHY ALIAS GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant on 16-11-1989 by the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai Division at Pudukkottai.

(2.) The circumstances which has given rise to this appeal, may be stated briefly as follows :P.W. 1. Narayanan, is the father of PW. 2 Madhavi. The accused is the husband of the said Madhavi. One year before the occurrence, the marriage between the accused and Madhavi had been celebrated and it appears for about nine months, they lived happily. The accused suspected the fidelity of Madhavi as he though it that Vetrivel, the Aunt's son of Madhavi, was having illicit intimacy with her. Madhavi became pregnant and there was frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife and at the proper time, it appears, Madhavi was taken by her father to his house for the purpose of delivery and she gave birth to a female child. The girl was named Deepa on the 16th day of delivery. After that, the accused took away his wife to his house where he compelled her for intercourse for which she was not willing. She has sent word to her mother and the mother of Madhavi went to her house and at that time the accused was absent. Thereafter, she brought Madhavi and the tender child to her house. Thereafter it appears, the accused who was aggrieved over it arranged for a mediation which was effected. On the date of the occurrence in the night time. PW. 1 and his wife were sleeping in the house keeping the door open. Madhavi slept with her sister. At about 9.30 p.m. The accused demanded PW. 1, his father-in-law to send Madhavi with him, for which he replied after the day break, it can be talked about. At about 10.00 p.m. the accused again compelled hiswife to come with him and she refused. Enraged on that, the accused snatched away the child from Madhavi and ran from the house. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the mother of PW 2 chased the accused. One Palaniappan, Arumugham and Karunanidhi also ran behind them. Street lights were burning. The accused was found running with the child about one furlong in the cross road leading to Pathampatty. While running, the accused threw the tender child in the well of one Muthusamy and PWs. 1 to 4 saw the same. PW 4, Arumugham went to this house, brought the torch light and found the child in the well. He got into the well by tying a rope and found the child dead. Thereafter, at 2.00 a.m., PWs. 1, 3, and 4 went to the Police Station where PW 1, the father-in-law of the accused orally narrated about the occurrence to the SubInspector of Police, PW 13. On the instruction of PW 13, the trainee Sub Inspector of Police reduced the same into writing, which document is Ex. P1. Thereafter, the routine things followed, namely, writing the printed F.I.R. and sending it to the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned, and higher police officials. Then the investigating Officer, PW 14, took up investigation, examined the witnesses and arrested the accused, who was produced by PW 8, the village Administrative Officer, and inquest was held on the dead body of the child and subsequently post-mortem was conducted by PW. 10. Ex. P6 is the post-mortem report. After completing the investigation, PW. 14 laid the charge sheet.2A. When the matter came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai Division at Pudukkottai, the accused denied the offence and claimed to be tried. 14 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 10 exhibits and 13 M.Os. have been marked. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai found the accused guilty under Section 304, Part II, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years. The correctness of the same is being challenged in this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. N. Duraiswamy, drew at attention of this Court on certain lapses committed by the investigating officer during the course of his investigation, which, according to the learned counsel, affects the case of the prosecution very much and throws considerable doubt on the case. It was pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the extra judicial confession as per the document. Ex. P. 3, which had persuaded the learned Sessions Judge to record a finding of conviction. On a careful consideration of the same, I find the said extra judicial confession has been recorded by the village Administrative Officer, after the investigation has started. Though the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed in detail about the implication of the said extra Judicial confession, I find that his decision was not influenced by the said extra judicial confession, inasmuch as he had based his finding not solely on the said extra judicial confession, but on other material evidence available on record.