SEENU ALIAS SEENIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Poonamallee, Chennai, made in S.C.No.283 of 2006 convicting the sole accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- carrying with the default sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) 1. This is a case of bride-burning. The accused is the husband of the deceased. P.W.1 is the landlord of the accused. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.5 is a co-tenant. P.W.6 is the father of the deceased. The accused was residing as a tenant in the house of P.W.1. 2.2. On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 01.09.2005 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased coming running with flames and was shouting to save her. P.W.5, a co-tenant, also stated that on 01.09.2005 at 8.30 p.m., she heard the hue and cry and found P.Ws.1 and 2 were in the house and the deceased came out with flames stating that her husband set fire on her. P.W.1 made arrangement to send the deceased to the hospital. The accused accompanied the deceased in the auto to the hospital. 2.3. The Doctor, P.W.3, attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, examined the deceased on 01.09.2005 at 11.00 p.m. brought by her husband, the accused. The deceased was found conscious and stated to the Doctor that her husband poured kerosene and set fire on her. The Doctor, P.W.3 found burn injuries throughout her body. He gave the first aid treatment. Ex.P.2 is the Accident Register. 2.4. P.W.9, Inspector of Police of Mangadu Police Station, received the report, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 on 01/02.09.2005 at 1.00 a.m. and registered the case in Crime No.1742 of 2005 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.14 is the Express First Information Report. He went to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and received the Accident Register at 2.15 a.m. and found the deceased with burn injuries and she was unconscious. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered M.O.1, kerosene pump-stove, M.O.2, three burnt cloth pieces from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he made arrangement to record the Dying Declaration through XIV Metropolitan Magistrate. While the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate reached the hospital, the deceased was found under unconscious condition and as such the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate was not able to record any Dying Declaration. 2.5. Thereafter, P.W.9 searched for the accused at 10.30 a.m. on 02.09.2005. He received the message from Kilpauk Medical College Hospital that the deceased died at 9.15 a.m. on 02.09.2005. He altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the altered First Information Report. The death intimation is Ex.P.17. He went to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. Ex.P.18 is the inquest report. He arrested the accused on 03.09.2005 at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses at Mugalivakkam junction and remanded him to judicial custody through the Court. He examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the body for post-mortem. 2.6. The Doctor, P.W.4, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 03.09.2005 at 12.15 p.m. and found the following injuries : Injury : Epidermo - dermo epidermal burns with denuded. Cuticle seen over the Face, includes lips neck both sides of the chest and abdomen, front and back of both upper limbs (includes thumbs) both thigh, right lower leg and upper part of trunk (70 % burns) G.V.ink mark seen over left great toe, no other injury noted. Heart : Normal in size c/s all chambers contain clotted blood. Coronaries : Patent. Hyoid bone : intact. Stomach : 200 CC of black colour fluid present No specific smell. Lungs : C/s. Congested. Liver : c/s congested. Spleen: c/s congested. Kidneys : c/s congested. Intestines:Distended with gas. Bladder : Empty. Uterus : empty Pelvis : intact. Scalp : Bones : Membranes : intact. Brain : Normal. Spinal Column : intact. The Doctor sent the Viscera for chemical examination and the report, Ex.P.4 discloses that there is no detection of poison from the samples. The Doctor, P.W.4, gave Ex.P.5 is the Post-mortem Certificate, in which, he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hypovolemic shock due to burns. 2.7. P.W.9 sent the material objects through the Court and received the chemical examination report, Ex.P.19. After receipt of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.5, chemical examination report, Ex.P.19 and after completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed the charge sheet on 30.09.2005 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) MR.E.J.Ayyappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel would submit that there is no motive for the accused to commit the offence and the prosecution has failed to put forward any motive against the accused. It is contended that the accused was present throughout and he only took the deceased to the hospital and the conduct of the accused shows his innocence. The learned counsel would contend that the deceased could not have given any oral dying declaration to the Doctor as she was found unconscious during the visit of the investigating officer, P.W.9, at the hospital at 2.15 a.m. on 02.09.2005. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased could not have given any oral dying declaration to P.W.5, a co-tenant, as P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated anything about oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.5. The learned counsel would also contend that in the absence of clear and clinching circumstances, the accused cannot be held liable for causing the death of the deceased.