MURUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a double murder case for having murdered his wife and first daughter, the appellant/sole accused faced trial in S.C. No.191 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri. By Judgment, dated 09.04.2007, passed by the trial court, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under each count. He was also convicted under Section 302 read with 201 IPC. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW-1 for the maintenance of his daughters. Aggrieved against the order passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/accused and the first deceased Lakshmi Saraswathi (referred in this Judgment as D1) are husband and wife, and the second deceased Keerthana (referred as D2) is their first daughter. PW-2 Lokeshwari is their second daughter. On 08.03.2004 at about 8.30 P.M., on account of a quarrel between the accused and D1, when she questioned the accused about his illicit relationship with several girls, the accused, with an intention to cause the death of D1, slapped her, as a result of which, she fell down unconscious and thereafter, he hanged her to the ceiling fan in the bed room with a 'salvai' till her death; thereby, charge under Section 302 IPC. was framed. During the course of the same transaction, the accused, fearing that his act would be divulged by D2, who witnessed the murder of her mother, throttled her neck with a towel, resulting in her death; thereby, charge under Section 302 IPC. (second count) came to be framed. THEreafter, he shifted the bead bodies to the residence of his parents at Mallapuram with a view to screen the offence; thereby, charge under Section 302 read with 201 IPC. was framed. When the accused was initially questioned, he pleaded innocence and therefore, trial of the case was taken up. THE prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P24 and produced MOs.1 to 7. THE defence did not examine any witness, however, marked an attested xerox copy of the post-mortem certificate as Ex.D1.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, on perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it will be quite apparent that her evidence is trustworthy. She has even withstood the rigour of cross examination and stated in her evidence positively that it is the appellant, who had committed the murder of both the deceased. She has further stated that the appellant threatened her not to inform PW-1 as to what she had witnessed. Relying on the decisions reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 7 (Ratansingh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat) and 2003 SCC (cri) 561 (State of Karnataka v. Shariff), he submitted that the evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case and in the present case, the evidence of PW-2 is quite natural, cogent, convincing and trustworthy. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, after shifting the dead bodies of the deceased to the residence of his parents, absconded and was arrested only subsequently. The occurrence took place inside the residence of the accused wherein no one was living except the accused, D-1 and their children D-2 and PW-2. The evidence of PW-5/owner of the house wherein the family was residing and that of PW-6, the driver of the auto rickshaw, will sufficiently substantiate that both the deceased were dead even at the time when they were shifted from the residence of the accused. In all probability, if really the wife of the accused had committed suicide by hanging on her own after killing D2, the accused would have immediately informed the same to the police without even shifting the dead bodies; on the contrary, he carried the dead bodies to the residence of his parents by travelling through the place where the police station is situated. The case of the appellant is that his wife was alive and only for the purpose of taking her to the hospital, he engaged the auto-rickshaw of PW-5, however, the emphatic evidence of PW-5/Auto driver is that the deceased were dead even at the time they were removed from the residence of the accused. The case projected by the appellant is totally contrary to what has been stated in the written statement of the accused viz., his wife, after killing her first daughter, had committed suicide; therefore, he himself had stated that both the deceased were already dead. EX.D1 cannot be looked into in view of the reason that it is only a xerox copy. Though it is stated that attestation of PW8 has been obtained therein, it is the evidence of PW-8 that such attestation has been given by her since she was convicted that her signature was found in the xerox copy. No such interpolation as put forward by the defence is available. Though on perusal of Ex.P8, the original post mortem certificate, it may appear that those aspects have been written specifically, it would in no way alter the nature of the certificate and the case of the prosecution. Through the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2, the prosecution has substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt. Their evidence has been sufficiently corroborated through other materials including medical evidence. The letter alleged to have been written by D1, produced by the accused along with his written statement, is unbelievable. If such a letter was available at the inception, the same would have been produced during the course of investigation or at least would have been put to PWs-1 and 2 when they were examined before court. The veracity of the same and the handwriting therein having not been established, the said letter has to be simply ignored. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.