JOTHI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. 1 and A.2 are living in G.15, Housing Board Colony Bulla Reddy Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Madras. They are husband and wife. A3 is a friend of theirs. Anandhi deceased is a girl aged 9 years who was serving in their house as maid servant.

(2.) While so on 30/8/1983 at 6.55 a.m. one R.S. Sankaranarayana noticed a dead body before No 33, Barnaby Road, Kilpauk, Madras, on the road side and reported it to the police control room, which report was received by P.W. 15 Head Constable. The information was passed on by P.W. 15 to G-3 Police Station and received by P.W. 26, Inspector of Police, Sankaranarayanan also informed P.W. 26 over phone P.W. 26 reached the spot at 7.20 a.m. on 30-8-1983 and found the dead body of a, child aged 9 years in the place indicated by Sankaranarayanail. He registered a case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took up investigation and was able to gather the following information: Anandhi is the daughter of P.W. 9. She was brought to Madras to serve as servant maid to A. 1 and A.2 by the father of A. 1 from Devakottai in the month of February, 1983. A.1 and A.2 used to ill- treat Anandhi and beat her often. Two to three weeks prior to the date of occurrence, A.1 called P.W.4 a maid servant in an another flat through his daughter Uma and questioned whether Anandhi ate any milk powder. P.W. 4 answered in the affirmative. Anandhi was beaten by A.1 with broom stick twice or thrice and by A.2 with hand. Then she was caught hold of by A.1 and dashed forcibly against the bed room wall. Anandhi used to take the daughter of A.1 and A.2 to a nursery school run by P.W. 5. When P.W. 6, the School Aaya saw Anandhi weeping she enquired about the matter and Anandhi opened her heart and narrated all these sufferings she was enduring at the hands of A.1 and A.2 and complained of pain on the left side of her body. P.W. 6 on 18/8/1983 reported the matter to P.W. 5 the Headmistress of the school. P.W. 5 in her turn enquired Anandhi and she narrated all her tribulations. At that time, A.1 came in search of Anandhi. He was taken to P.W.Ss room by P.W. 6 and P.W. 5 warned him that any further ill-treatment to Anandhi would entail disastrous consequences for him. On 29/8/1983 at about 4.30 p.m. P.W.1 was called to the house of A.1 and A.2 by one Thilagam. P.W.1 and Thilagam are living in other flats of the same apartment. The house of A.l and A.2 was found bolted from inside. P.W.1 broke open the door at the request of A.2 and found Anandhi sleeping. A.2 kicked her in the abdomen two or three times. After about an hour A.1 returned from the office and upon being briefed by his wife about the Anandhi sleeping and not opening the door, he beat Anandhi with hand and shoe. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 At about 6.30 p.m. A.3 carried Anandhi on his shoulder accompanied by A.1 they engaged the autorickshaw of P.W. 7 and took Anandhi to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital where Anandhi was-seen by P.W.11 the doctor in charge of the casualty ward. A.1 and A.3 were seen again together completely drenched at about 9.30 p.m. by P.W. 12 and they were not in a position to give any satisfactory reply for their being drenched to P.W. 12s query. The body of Anandhi was identified by P.W. 7 and by P.W. 9, Anandhis father who came from his native place alongwith his wife. A.ls father also identified the body. P.W. 25 who conducted the post-mortem found 41 external injuries and 6 internal injuries. Internal injury Nos. 2 and 6 were considered by P. W. 25 as having caused the death of Anandhi.

(3.) A.1 was traced through the indication given by P.W. 7 and was arrested on 31/8/1983 at 10-50 a.m. A.3 was arrested on the same day at 7.30 p.m. at the Victoria Hotel. A.2 who was absconding was arrested on 6/9/1984 in front of her house. The investigating officer on completion of the investigation filed a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code appeared to have been committed by A.1 and A.2 and that an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code appeared to have been committed by A.1 and A3. The Sessions Court framed Charges accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty. The presecution adduced the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation. That voluminous evidence consisted of depositions of 26 witnesses, 34 exhibits and 23 material objects.