SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan Etc on 2 December, 1997

State Of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan Etc on 2 December, 1997
Author: M Srinivasan
Bench: M Punchhi, M Srinivasan

PETITIONER:

STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

P. MUNIAPPAN ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1997

BENCH:

M.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan

T.S. Arunchalam, Sr. Adv., V.G. Pragasam, S. Balakrishnan, (Ms. Revathy Raghavan) Adv. for R.N. Keshwani, A. Mariputham, Adv. for M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co. K.N. Basha, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath, K.N. Gopal Singh, Advs. with him for the appearing Parties. J U D G M E N T

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: M. SRINIVASAN, J.

The appeal is by the State Government against the judgment of the High Court of Madras setting aside that of the Additional principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquitting the respondent of the charges under section 302 and 201 IPC. The Special Leave petition was filed earlier by the brother of the deceased Nagammal against the same judgment of the High Court. At the granting permission to petitioner to file the S.L.P., notice was ordered by this Court in the S.I.P. and later directed to be tagged on to the above appeal.

2. The respondent was working as Assistant Professor of Mathematics in Udumalpet College. He married Nagammal on 2.3.76. After marriage, he got transferred to a college in Tiruppur. Nagammal became an Assistant Professor in Vellalar Collage, Erode.

Though the respondent was highly educated, he was insisting on her resigning her job and living with him as house wife. Besides, he along with his parents was making repeated demands for dowry in the shape of household articles. As regards their marriage life, the High Court has observed thus:

It is true tat the family life of

Nagammal proved to be miserable .

From the beginning there was

misunderstanding between the couple

and only for short intermittent

periods they had lived together.

Besides the jewels and cash

received by him at the time of

marriage, the appellant had been

insisting that his wife should

bring household articles necessary

to set up a new family

establishment at Tirupur. While the

parents of the appellant were

adamant that her daughter in law

should resign her job, Nagammal

very much liked to be a working

woman. It is the appellant who

initiated divorce proceedings

against the deceased. A reading of

Ex. P-2 the counter filed by

Nagammal would go to show that even

though she was not prepared to quit

the job, she was equally anxious

that she should live with her

husband happily. Her statement in

the counter that she had not done

any wrong to her husband and that

she begs him to forget and forgive

if he had enter tained or found any

mistake committed by her reveals

her state of mind.”

3. In the petition for divorce referred to by the High Court in the above passage, the respondent had stated that his wife left his house on 8.7.76 with her father and alleged that on 14.8.76, her father and brothers came to his house along with her and by using force and violence took away with them jewels worth about 35 1/2 sovereigns after attacking him and his mother. He introduced an innuendo in Para 4 of his petition as follows:

” The marriage for her was

obviously intended to enable the

respondent to go about with greater

freedom as a married women.”

That discloses the ‘cynic’ in him.

4. That petition was filed on 24.11.1978. His wife Nagammal filed her counter on 12.3.79 expressing her anxiety to live with him. The matter was being adjourned number of times on the ground that both counsel were not ready. On 21.6.82, the court after noticing that both sides were not ready adjourned it finally to 8.7.82. On the latter date it was represented to the Court that the respondent therein had committed suicide. However, the petition was dismissed for default as the petitioner therein was absent. It is necessary to note that though the respondent claimed to have taken her back and started living with her from 12.9.81, he did not withdraw the petition. According to PW7, he refused to withdraw the petition. This shows that the respondent had a motive for not withdrawing the petition.

5. It is in evidence that though the respondent and his wife resumed their family life in September 1981, they got separated again in December 1981 and joined Sometime in April. On 27.6.1982, they came to live in the house in which Nagammal was living till then with her friend and colleague, PW 6 Vasanthamani in order to enable the couple to live together, PW 6 shifted to another house nearby. Within five days thereafter Nagammal’s life not with an unnatural end.

6. On 2.7.1982, Nagammal’s body was found to be hanging from the roof of her kitchen. The High Court has given a clear picture of what happened from 1.7.82 till the conclusion of the post mortem in the following words: .1m16.

“On 1.7.1982 Thursday Nagammal came

to the colleague wearing a new

yellow sari and jacket. PW 2

Ponnathal was a co-demonstrator

with Nagammal in Tirupur Women’s

College. She and PW6 Vasanthamani

asked her why she was wearing new

sari on that day while t is

customery to wear new clothes only

on Fridays. Nagammal told her

friend that her husband had

presented the sari and jacket

commemorating her joining Vellalar

College on 1.7.19976. Now he had

changed very much and even blessed

her for happy life. she was wearing

a new sari on that day as per the

desire of her husband. Nagammal was

very happy and in the evening she

returned home from the college with

PW-6 Vasanthamani did not notice

any injury on her face.

At about 6.00 PM on 1.7.1982, PW6

Vasanthamani left her house on

account of some Personal work and

returned at about 8.00 PM. She

found that doors and windows of the

portion where nagammal was residing

were closed from inside. There was

no light. She did not call Nagammal

because after a long time the

appellant had come to live with his

wife on that day.

PW 11 Kandasamy is the next door

neighbour of Nagammal. On 1.7.1982,

after attending a marriage he and

his wife Renuka came back to their

house at about to .30 PM or 11.00

PM. At that time nobody was

sleeping on the pial of Nagammal’s

house. PW 10 Tirupathi is also a

resident of Ramasamy Mudaliar

compound. On that night he went to

a late show movie and returned to

the house. Since the door of the

compound wall was locked he rang p

the call bell and the appellant

opened the door. When he wen to his

portion this witness found that the

appellant took his bed on the pial

of the house where he was residing

with Nagammal.

On the morning of 2.7.1982 all the

residents of Ramasamy Mudaliar

Compound purchased their morning

mild as usual. At about 6.30 AM the

wife of PW 11 Kandasamy informed

her husband that Nagammal did not

come out of her house to purchase

milk even though milkman flew his

horn. when PW 11 Kandasamy came out

of the house he found the appellant

was lying in the pial of his house.

When he asked him why he was

sleeping outside, the appellant

told hi that because his wife was

having her menstrual period he had

taken his bed outside. He added

that even though he had knocked the

door Nagammal did not turn up. PW

11 Kandaswamy told the appellant

that he could have slept in a room

inside the house. The appellant

replied that Nagammal had asked him

to sleep replied that nagammal had

asked him to sleep outside. PW 6

Vasanthamani also noticed that

nagammal did not turn up to get the

mild till 6.00 AM. When she wanted

to enquire she found the appellant

was standing outside the door of

his house. One door alone was

opened. PW 6 Vasanthamani called

Nagammal through that window but

there was no reply. There after the

residents of that compound gathered

there and one Renganathan climbed

the roof, removed the tiles and

found that Nagammal was hanging.

PW 8 Chanasekhar an is an Assistant

Professor of Chikkanna College

firupur where the appellant is

working. On 2.7.1982 at about 7.00

AM the appellant came there

weeping. He told him that his wife

had died and asked him to inform

this to their colleagues. PW 8

Chanasekharan went to the house or

PW 5 Ramanujulu another professor

of the same College and passed on

the message.

On 2.7.1982 at 10.00 AM the

appellant came to Tirupur South

Police Station and lodged Ex. p-44

complaint about the death of his

wife. PW 21 Sub-Inspector received

and recorded it as Crime No. 374 of

1982 of his station under Section

174 of the Criminal procedure Code.

He prepared Ex. p-45 the printed

copy of the FIR. Then he reached PW

13 Rajalakshmi, Principal of the

woman’s College where Nagammal was

working were present. PW 3

Subramaniam the Principal of the

Chikkana College was also there.

The front door of the house was

found bolted from inside. PW 21 Sub

Inspector kicked the door and

pushed it with his Inspector kicked

the door and pushed it with his

hands. M.D.3 the latch of the bolt

from inside gave way and fell down.

PW 2 Ponnathal also went inside

along with PW 21 Sub Inspector. She

found Nagammal hanging in a rope.

PW 21 Sub Inspector prepared Ex. P.

47 observation mahazar and EX.P. 89

rough sketch of the place. He

conducted request to 1.30 PM. EX.

p.46 is the inquest report. He as

examined the appellant and others

at the time of inquest. He also

recovered M.D.4 Rope, M.D. 2 Ball

Point Pen and M.D.3 Latch of the

Lock and Ex.P. 13 a suicide note

dated 1.7.1982 purported to have

been written by Nagammal under

Nagammal from that place under

Ex.p.90 mahazar. Ex. p 13 was shown

to PW 3 principal and PW 13

Principal. He also seized the

jewels from the body of Nagammal

under Ex. P.91 mahazar. On the same

day he had examined PW 6, PW 10 and

PW 11.

Thereafter PW 21 Sub Inspector sent

the body for post mortem through PW

20 Constable with Ex. P.74

requisition and Ex. P.77 Printed

form. PW 16 Dr. Vijyalakshmi

commenced the post mortem in the

government Headquarters hospital,

Tirupur at 3.30 PM on 2.7.1982 she

found that rigor mortis was present

in both lower limbs and passed away

in both upper limbs. It was

moderately nourished body. She

found these ante-mortem injuries on

the body.

1) Burnt area of the skin about 1/2

cm. in diameter on the bridge of

the nose. Skin charred.

2) burnt area of the skin about 1/2

cm in diameter on the left temporat

region and left cheek present. Skin

charred.

3) Old scar about 2 cm on the

medical aspect of the left ankle.

4) Abrasion j cm x 1/2 cm with scab

formation on the left knee.

5) A ligature mark which was

superficial about 2 cm in breadth,

well defined, was seen above the

thyroid cartilage running obliquely

upwards interrupted at the back

reaching mastoid process behind the

ears. knot mark was seen on the

right side of the neck. On dis-

section, the subcutaneous tissue

under the ligature mark was pale

and glistening. Rigor mortis

present in both lower limbs. Rigor

mortis passed off in both upper

limbs. Eye lids were partially

opened on both sides. Tongue

portruded between the teeth.

Dribbling of Saliva from the right

angle of the mouth was present.

Jaws were clenched. Teeth were

complete. Abdomen distended. There

was no fracture of ribs. Heart

weight 300 grams Congested Hyoid

bone intact. Stomach contained 150

grams of digested food particulars.

Liver 1400 grams congested. Spleen

150 grams congested. Kidneys 150

grams each congested. Intestine

distended with gas. Bladder empty,

Uterus normal. Weight 70 grams.

Ovaries normal scalip – no

fracture. Brain weight 1300 grams.-

Pale. The viscere was preserved and

sent for chemical analysis. No

poison was detected in the viscera

sent. On reviewing the post mortem

findings and Chemical Examiner’s

report, she gave the opinion that

the deceased would appear to have

died as asphyxia due to suicidal

hanging between 11.30 PM of

1.7.1982 and 3.30 AM of 2.7.1982.

Ex. P. 48 is the post mortem

certificate issued by her Ex.p.51

is the Chemical examiner’s report.

After the receipt of the same she

has given her final opinion in

Ex.P. 75 and 876 (sic) that the

deceased has died of hanging.

According to her external injury

Nos. 1 and 2 in Ex. 48 could have

been caused by any hot object like

cigarete with flame. There is no

resistinging injuries around those

two injuries.”

7. In the first instance, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr. P.C. and investigated. Later on the orders of D.I.G., C.I.D. Madras the CBCID took up the investigation. After examination of witnesses the charges were got altered to Sec. 306 IPC and 327 IPC. On 4.7.83, the respondent was arrested. After examining some more witnesses the charges were altered to Section 302 IPC and 201 IPC. On completion of investigation a chargesheet was filed on 6.1.84. The respondent denied the charge and claimed that she committed suicide. The Court of Sessions found him guilty on both counts and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 201 IPC. On appeal, the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of the trial and acquitted the respondent.

8. As stated by the High Court, the case depends upon circumstantial evidence only. We have already pointed out that the respondent was never interested in living with his wife. He was not only making demands for various household things but also insisting on resigning her job. There is ample evidence to show that he was treating her cruelly. PW 6, PW 7 and PW 9 have deposed that the respondent was demanding the consent of Nagammal either for divorce or for his second marriage. PW 2 and PW 12 have stated that the beat her in public in front of lip Top Lodge and Jeevabai School one day when she was going to the College. PW 6 and PW 12 have stated that nagammal had told them about his drinking and compelling her to drink against her will. In this regard, we are eschewing from consideration the evidence of PW 1. PW 9 is a friend of the respondent’s mother told him that Nagammal should give consent for second marriage of the respondent. Nothing has been placed on record to discredit the aforesaid witnesses. The trial court has accepted their evidence and the High Court has not disbelieved them.

9. Apart from the oral evidence, there is documentary evidence in the shape of letters written by Nagammal, the genuineness of which cannot be assailed. We are not referring here to the doubtful letters Exs. P 27, P 29, P30, P 31 and p 32 written to PW 7 and Ex.P. 38 written to PW 9 whose genuineness has not been challenged bear ample testimony to the extent to which the respondent was prepared to go to make her life miserable. Ex. P 27 shows that the respondent had taken her signatures on blank papers. It also shows that he viewed her with suspicion when she returned one day late from the college. In spite of the fact that all the jewels and F.D. receipts were entrusted to him in October, 1981, nagammal was sent to her parents’ house shortly thereafter. All the above evidence lands to the conclusion that the respondent did not at any time have a genuine desire to live with Nagammal.

10. learned counsel for the respondent has argued before us that the marriage was a happy one and there was no hitch between nagammal and the respondent. According to him her parents wanted to enjoy her earnings and book all steps to keep her away from her husband. The contention is not acceptable. It goes against the teeth of the evidence referred to by the High Court which we have already extracted. We have no doubt that the respondent was responsible for Nagammal’s suffering. it is in this background the evidence relating to her death should be appreciated.

11. There is no dispute that the death of Nagammal is unnatural. Admittedly, the respondent was the only other occupant in the house where her death occurred in the night. Admittedly, the respondent had supper with her in the night. According to Ex.p-44, he slept in the outside Verandah as there was no ventilation inside (Vide Ex. P. 44). In Ex. p- 66, he has stated that nagammal wanted him to sleep outside as she wanted to wake up at 4.30 AM next morning, clean the house, wash the clothes and go to temple and that he could sleep undisturbed till 7.00 AM. The third version is in the written statement filed by him under Section 313 Cr. P.C.. It is stated thus: “After husband and wife relations 1 used to come outside and sleep for want of air and my wife used to sleep inside by bolting the door from inside.” PW 11 has deposed that the respondent told him to because Nagammal was in her periods she told him to sleep outside. In the oral examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. a specific question was put to him that he told PW 11 that Nagammal wanted him to sleep outside. The respondent simply denied it. Thus the respondent has given different explanations for his sleeping outside separately within a few days after joining his wife.

12. The respondent has given a reason for Nagammal committing suicide. According to him she was having acute stomach pain during her period and during coitus. This cannot be true on the face of it because of her written statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. There is no evidence to support his version excepting his own statement. Reliance is placed on Ex. p. 35 issued by one Dr. S. Balakrishnan on 3.6.1988 that she had ‘pelvic infection’ since the previous day. The doctor has not been examined . The colleagues of Nagammal have not heard of her stomach pain. The post mortem examination of the body of the deceased has not disclosed any infection. According to P-35, the doctor devised her to take rest for three weeks only. there is no evidence to show that she was taking any medicine. In any event, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Nagammal was suffering from such acute pain or far that matter any other ailment which could goad her to commit suicide.

13. According to the High Court, the mental and physical torture endured by Nagammal in the hands of her husband made her desperate to put an end to her life. The said inference is wholly unreasonable and unwarranted. The High Court has after referring to the circumstances that Nagammal accepted a lower post after resigning a higher post in order to facilitate her living with her husband and that the evidence of PWs 2 and 6 proved that Nagammal was very happy on 1.7.1982 observed: “But we do not know what transpired between the husband and wife after 6.00 PM on that day”. The High Court has compltely over looked the letters written by Nagammal which prove clearly that Nagammal was not such a weak-minded person to commit suicide on a sudden provocation of which we ave no evidence whatever. The evidence makes out clearly that Nagammal had a strong mental frame and was keen on living with her husband. The sequence of events does not lead to any inference that something happened during the night which made her commit suicide immediately.

14. If it is a case of suicide, there is no explanation for burn injuries. The High Court has held that she chose to terminate her life of her own accord perhaps on account of the torture she had undergone in the hands of her cruel husband’. Does the High Court refer here to torture before 27.6.1982. or on 1.7.1982? There is no doubt that the torture or the conduct of the respondent prior to 27.6.1982 could not have persuaded Nagammal to commit suicide. Thus the cause of her death could have sprung up only on 1.7.1982 night. According to the respondent he had coitus with her and she wanted to get up early in the morning, clean the house and go to the temple. Obviously she had no reason to commit suicide. it is in that background, the following circumstances in the case should be considered: I) The respondent had strong motive to put her out of the way before the petition for divorce fixed for 8..7.2 finally was taken up for hearing. The respondent had developed hatred towards her and drove her out of the house (vide Ex.p-2 Para 5). He refused to withdraw the petition for divorce though she came to live with him. he was repeatedly insisting upon her consent for his second marriage of divorce.

II) He was the only other occupant of the house in which she met with the unnatural end.

III) His Varied explanations for sleeping separately outside the house are totally unbelievable.

IV) The burn injuries on the body of Nagammal which were not in existence on the evening of 1.7.1982. There being no resist injuries the only inference possible in the circumstances is that the respondent caused them before or after her death.

V) The dishevelled hair and the disturbed dress with the jacket and bra being open show that there was a struggle before her death. The witnesses who saw her body have deposed that the saree was just put around the body. Her feet were touching the floor. There is no evidence to show that the cardboard box alleged to have been by the side of the body could have borne her weight. VI) The conduct of the respondent in rushing to the police station without going inside the house and finding out whether she was dead is also relevant. VII) The “thali'(mangalsutra) was not on the neck of the deceased but it was with the respondent. The above circumstances lead to only one conclusion, that is, the respondent is guilty. We have taken care to omit disputed pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, the High Court has failed to consider the above evidence on record before upsetting the judgment of the trial court and thus its judgment is vitiated.

15. The High Court has observed that when the doctor has expressed two views, the one that is favourable to the accused must be taken into account. As a general proposition, it may be true. But medical evidence cannot be considered in isolation. After all, medical opinion is based on inferences drawn from various facts present. It is not as if homicide is completely ruled out by the doctors. Hence, their evidence must be taken in conjunction with all the circumstantial evidence on record. The entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only, and the medical evidence is not to the contrary. Thus we have no doubt that the death of Nagammal was homicidal only.

16. The trial court has referred to Ex.P-13, the slip of paper purporting to be a ‘suicide note’ and held that it was fabricated by the accused. The High court has opined that the read note has been suppressed and another has been substituted in its place after C.B.C.I.D. Police came into the picture. There is no support in the evidence for this opinion is based on the statement of PW 1 that the writing in the note was in red ink and the signature was in blue ink but in Ex.p 13 the writing as well as the signature are in blue ink. PW 1 has stated that the Sub-Inspector of police refused to show the note to him when he asked for it. PW 1 claims to have been told by his father that the writing was in light red colour ink and signature was in blue ink. Hence his evidence is of no use. If the original note was in two different inks, that itself could be a circumstance against the accused as it would show that the writing was by one person and the signature was by another. On the other hand, if the writing and the signature were by the same person but in two different inks it would mean that the writing and signature were at a different times. There was only one ball point pen at the spot. We have referred to the above aspects only to show that a definite conclusion that there was a substitution of the note is not possible. However, we are prepared to omit Ex. P-13 completely from consideration in this case. The other evidence on record is sufficient to prove the quilt of the accused on both counts 17. As we have rested our conclusion on the evidence on record, it is unnecessary to refer to S. 113-A of the Evidence Act or the judgments in Gurbachan Singh Versus Satpal singh and others, (1990) 1 S.C.C 445 and Lakhjit Singh and Another Versus State of Punjab 1994 Supp. 1 S.C.C. 173 relied on by learned counsel for the appellant. Nor is it necessary to advert to the judgments in Sangarbonia Sreenu Versus State of A.P. A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3233 and State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok chotalal Shukla 1997 S.C.C. (Cr l.) 1186 cited by learned counsel for the respondent.

18. Thus we hold that the judgment and order of the trial court are correct. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. He conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are restored. The bail stands cancelled and respondent shall be taken into custody for forthwith.

Main – Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation