RASAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two appeals namely C.A.No.229/2006 by A-1 and C.A.No.189 of 2006 by A-

(2.) THEY challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division (FTC), Namakkal, made in S.C.No.116 of 2005 whereby the appellants herein who were ranked as A-1 and A-2 respectively, along with A-3 stood charged namely A-1 to A-3 under Sec.120(b) of IPC, A-1 and A-3 under Sec.450 of IPC, A-1 and A-2 under Sec.302 of IPC and A-3 under Sec.302 read with 109 of IPC, and tried, and A-1 was found guilty under Sec.450 of IPC for which he was awarded 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence, and A-1 and A-2 were found guilty under Sec.302 read with 109 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence, while A-3 was acquitted of all the charges. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:(a) The deceased Kuppayee was the mother-in-law of A- 2. A-2 developed illicit intimacy with A-1, a neighbour. This fact was not only known to A-3, but also she helped them for that cause. Both A-1 and A-2 felt that the deceased Kuppayee was the hurdle for their relationship since she often quarrelled with A- 2. Hence, they planned to finish her off. Accordingly, A-1 to A-3 hatched up a conspiracy, pursuant to which on 3.9.2003 at about 10.30 A.M., A-1 and A-3 entered into the house of A- 2. A-1 switched on the T.V., and the deceased was quarrelling with A-1 at 12.00 hours. At that time, A-1 and A-2 strangulated the neck of Kuppayee with M.O.2 rope, when A-3 facilitated the crime by catching hold of her. A-1 and A-3 left the scene of occurrence. A-2 adumbrated that her mother-in-law Kuppayee died naturally. Following the same, the dead body was also buried.(b) P.W.2 was the Panchayat President during the relevant time. On 6.10.2003 at about 7.00 A.M., when he was in his office, A-1 appeared before him along with A-2 and A-3, and he made mention about the incident and their involvement. Immediately, P.W.2 took all the three to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of the place, to whom A-1 gave a confessional statement. P.W.1 recorded the same, which is marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 also prepared his own report marked as Ex.P2. P.W.1 in turn produced all the three accused along with Exs.P1 and P2 before P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station. On the strength of those documents, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.366 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P23, was despatched to the Court.(c) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation and enquired the accused. A-1 to A-3 gave confessional statements. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P18. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P21, and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P26. Further, M.O.2, rope, was produced by A-1. The same was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, P.W.8, the Tahsildar, was informed about the same, who came over to the place, and the place where the dead body was buried, was actually identified by the accused. Ex.P27, the rough sketch, was prepared in that regard. Then, the dead body was exhumed. P.W.8 conducted the inquest on the dead body of Kuppayee in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars between 4.15 and 5.15 P.M. and prepared Ex.P9, the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of postmortem. (d) P.W.7, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Velur, Namakkal District, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kuppayee and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P6. She gave her opinion in Ex.P7 that the deceased would appear to have died of complications of asphyxia about 30 to 45 days prior to autopsy.(e) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and filed the final report on completion of investigation.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that the entire case rested upon the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 first to P.W.2 and thereafter to P.W.1, the VAO, on production that in the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that A-2 and A-3 gave any extra-judicial confessions, nor was it recorded by the VAO that what was all available was Ex.P1, the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to and recorded by P.W.1, and also the report of P.W.1, the VAO that P.W.1 would claim that he was in his office on 6.10.2003 at about 7.00 A.M., and A-1 to A-3 were produced, and A-1 gave a confessional statement, and the same was actually recorded which is Ex.P1, and he also gave his report under Ex.P2 but, contrarily, when they were examined in Court, P.W.2 has categorically admitted that all the accused were taken to the police station and produced on 5.10.2003 itself, and P.W.2 was called to the police station but, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that he was summoned to the police station, and all these documents were prepared in the police station wherein he put his signature, and his seal was brought from his office and then affixed, and thus it would clearly indicate that the extra judicial confession as put forth by the prosecution was nothing but false and could not be acted upon and should have been rejected but, the lower Court has erroneously accepted the same.