REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 997    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4715 of 2007)

Murugan …Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu …Respondent

 JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of

the  appellant  for  offences  punishable  under  Section  376(1)

read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

1

the ‘IPC’)  and Section 302 IPC.  The appellant was sentenced

to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  ten  years  and  Life

Imprisonment for two offences.  As noted above, fine was also

imposed with default stipulation.

3. Sans unnecessary  details  the  prosecution version  in  a

nutshell is as follows:

Tamilselvi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘deceased’)  is

none other than the wife of Andrews (PW1).  They had been

blessed with three children.  Except Romeo (PW 10) the other

two children were staying in a hostel.

PW 1 was carrying on groundnut cake business in the

ground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.  PW 1,

the  victim  and  their  daughter  Romeo  were  staying  in  the

upstairs  of  the  said  house.  The  accused  Murugan  was

employed as an assistant in PW1’s shop and he was staying in

the ground floor itself where the business was carried on.  The

deceased used to get his ration of food from PW 1.

2

On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim went to the

ground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of food

to the accused. P.W.1 waited for some time, but the victim had

not returned. He came down to the ground floor and heard an

alarming noise. When he attempted to push the outer door of

the ground floor, he found that it was locked from inside. P.W.

1 went around the house and peeped through the window. He

found to his shock that the accused, taking position on his

wife who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulate

her. Thereafter the accused opened the door from inside and

sped away from the scene of occurrence.

P.W.1 gave a chase accompanied by Elumalia-P.W.2. The

accused took shelter in a nearby bush. He went to the church

and  informed  the  people  over  there.  He  came  down to  his

house  and  found  his  wife  dead.  Thereafter  P.W.1  went  to

Kolathur Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the

sub-Inspector  of  Police,  P.W.9,  who was present  over  there.

The latter registered a case in Crime No.1050/2000 for the

3

offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex.

P9  and  despatched  the  same  to  the  learned  Judicial

Magistrate  concerned  and  the  copies  thereof  to  the  higher

officials.

The Inspector of  Police,  Mr.  Natrajan-P.W.13,  who was

Incharge  of  the  said  police  station  when  Varadarajan,  the

regular Inspector of Police P.W.14 was on leave, took up the

case  for  investigation  on  receipt  of  a  copy  of  the  FIR  and

rushed  to  the  scene  of  occurrence  and prepared  the  rough

sketch-Ex.P-12.  He also prepared the observation Mahazar-

Ex.  P-2  in  the  presence  of  Chellaiah,  P.W.4  and  another

witness. He held inquest on the dead body and prepared the

inquest report, Ex. P13. At about 8.30 p.m. on the said day, in

the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.13 recovered thali

Chain  M.0.4  and  packing  material-M.0.7  under  relevant

mahazar, Ex. P-3.  He entrusted the dead body to the Head

Constable Mohan, P.W.8 for the purpose of taking the same to

the doctor for conducting postmortem examination.

4

Dr.  Deivasigamnai,  P.W.7,  conducted  autopsy  on  the

dead body of the victim at about 11.40 a.m. on 4.9.2000 and

found the following injuries and symptoms on the dead body:

"A  well  defined  incomplete  oblique  ligature  abrasions

mark in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage,

16 x 1 cms on the front, the ligature abrasion was 6 cms

below the chin and 6 cms about the suprasternal noted

and the ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the

neck.  The  subcutaneous  soft  tissues  underlying  the

ligature abrasion were found congested.

2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid

bone  found  with  extravasations  of  blood  in  the

surrounding soft tissues.

Heart:  Intact.  Normal  Trachea:  Empty.  Stomach

contained  200  ml.  of  brown  fluid  with  partly  digested

cooked rice particles. No definite smell."

5

4. After  investigation  charge  sheet  was  filed.   As  the

accused pleaded innocence, he was put on trial.

5. In  order  to  establish  the  prosecution  version  14

witnesses were examined.  Placing reliance on the evidence of

PWs.  1  &  2,  the  trial  court  found  the  accused  guilty  and

convicted  and  sentenced.   The  High  Court  upheld  the

conviction and the sentence.

6. In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  submitted  that  the  defence  version  has  been

erroneously discarded by the High Court.  He has stated that

the conduct of PW1 after allegedly having seen the accused

with his wife unnatural and should not have been relied upon.

The presence of PW2 at the spot had also not been explained

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the

judgment of the High Court.

6

8. PW 1 has chosen to chase the accused along with PW 2

and having found some people in the church, which is nearby,

informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came back

to his house to verify the fate of his wife.  PW 1 obviously was

in a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating his

wife.  It is quite common for a person under shock to share his

grief to the persons who are found close by. It is not as if PW 1

rushed  straight  to the  police  station after  informing certain

persons in the church without even verifying the fate of his

wife.   

9. The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only on

the basis of his confessional statement his apparels had been

recovered.   It  is  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

accused that  the  accused,  who was spotted  committing the

crime, would not have taken some time to hide his apparels at

a  safe  place.   It  is  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  PW 1

having  witnessed  the  occurrence  by  peeping  through  the

window came down to the doorway with a view to open the

door.  The door was opened from inside by the accused.  It is

7

not  as  if  the  door  was  opened  by  PW 1  immediately  after

witnessing the occurrence through the window.  The accused,

who was inside the house, would have had time to remove his

apparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe

place in the house.  Further it will not take much of a time to

remove the clothes by a person who was in a hurry to escape

from the scene of crime.  In view of the above, there is nothing

to doubt the recovery of the apparels of the accused made by

the investigating officer.  The recovery at the instance of the

accused raises presumptions of guilt as against him.

10. It  is an unfortunate case where the accused has come

out with a repulsive counter version that he had some affairs

earlier with the victim, and when he was found embracing the

wife of PW 1, it was witnessed by PW 1. He has stated that he

was not the author of the murder.  If at all the victim had an

affair with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would not

have come to light.  But stand of the accused, who lived in the

ground floor for five years to be having an affair without being

noticed is too hollow to be accepted.

8

11. Trial  court  and  the  High  Court  have  analysed  the

evidence  in  great  details  and  have  come  to  the  right

conclusion about involvement of the accused. We do not find

any infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court and the High

Court to warrant any interference.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

……………………………J. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi: July 7, 2008

9