REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2002

State of Tamil Nadu         ….Appellant  

Versus

Manmatharaj ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of

the  Madras  High  Court  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) who was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The  accused  is  a  resident  of  Chockalingapuram.  The  deceased

Mariammal was his wife. Their marriage had taken place ten years prior to

the occurrence. (The occurrence was on 29.5.1990) The deceased and the

accused have a son aged about eight years. The deceased was employed in a

private establishment near her village. PW2 is her co-worker. The accused

came  to  know  that  his  wife  was  having  an  illicit  affair  with  PW  2.

Therefore, he warned his wife. However, the deceased continued her affair

with PW2. Two weeks prior to the occurrence, on coming to know that the

deceased and PW2 are happily spending their time in the plantain garden of

Neerkathalingam, north of the village, the accused went there to catch them

red-handed.  Seeing  his  movements  there,  PW2 and  the  deceased  parted

company  and  moved  away.  On  25.5.1990,  the  deceased  and  PW2 were

found sharing their bed in the very same plantain garden by PW3 and PW4.

Both PWs 3 & 4 reprimanded them. Coming to know about this incident,

the accused questioned his wife on 29.5.1990 and his  wife flatly refused

such an incident. There was an exchange of words between the two during

which  the  accused  abused  the  deceased  stating  that  he  had  been  put  to

2

shame on account of his wife's conduct and therefore, he must kill her. He

wanted his wife to accompany him so that he could verify with PWs 3 & 4

about  the incident  on 25.5.1990 in  her  presence.  With  that  object  in  his

mind, the accused took his wife to the private establishment where she was

working.  Enroute,  they  found  PW5  seated  under  a  banvan  tree.  The

deceased invited him to join them. However, the accused told PW5 not to

accompany them. The deceased and the accused were proceeding towards

north and they were passing a channel called "Vadi Kalvai" around 12 noon

on that day. The deceased refused to proceed further  towards the private

establishment where she was working. She also told the accused at that time

that  she  would move only like  that  with  PW2 and  if  the  accused  is  not

willing for such a course, then she would rather go with PW2. Deciding that

she  should  not  be  allowed  to  live  any more,  the  accused  fisted  her  and

pushed her inside the channel. Pressing her inside the water, he picked up a

white stone lying nearby and repeatedly attacked on her head with that stone

resulting in injuries on the back side of her head, left ear and over the right

cheek.  Mariammal  was  bleeding  through  the  injury  on  her  head  which

stained the earth as well as her saree. When Mariammal was being pushed

by the accused, she bit his right hand index finger as well as his right hand

resulting in injuries to the accused. Thinking that Mariammal would die, the

3

accused leaving Mariammal at the spot itself,  rushed to the establishment

where his younger brother Kasirajan was working and confessed to him that

he  had  attacked  his  wife  with  a  stone.  The  accused  and  Kasirajan

immediately went to the scene of occurrence where they found Mariammal

fighting for her life.  Immediately, the accused and his younger brother put

her in a cart and took her to the house where she was laid on the western

side of the house. When Mariammal was being taken down from the cart,

the  shirt  of  the  accused  and  his  younger  brother  became  blood-stained.

Sometime later, Mariammal died. The accused thought of burning his wife's

body secretly. However, his conscience did not permit him to do so which

impelled him to disclose the truth to someone. Accordingly, he reached the

office  of  PW  1,  the  Village  Administrative  Officer  around  8  p.m.  On

29.5.1990  where  PW7 and  the  Panchayat  President  were  there.  In  their

presence the accused gave a confessional statement.

3. The  Trial  Court  placing  reliance  on  the  extra  judicial  confession

given to the Village Administrative Office (PW1) in the presence of PW7

directed conviction. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction. The

High Court after referring to the evidence of PWs 1 and 7 held that Ex.P1

lacks authenticity.      

4

4. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  High  Court

should  not  have  directed  acquittal  doubting  the  authenticity  of  Ex.P1.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment.  

5. In the instant case, having concluded that Ex. P 1 lacks corroboration,

High Court has referred to the oral  evidence of PWs 1 and 7 to find out

whether their evidence would pass the test of reliability.  High Court was of

the view that it could rely upon their evidence if it was held that Ex. P1 had

come to be recorded without any suspicious circumstance surrounding it. In

this context, a perusal of Ex.P15 as well as Ex. P1 itself give room to doubt

the very truth of Exs. P1 and P15. At the foot of Ex. P1, PW1 had made an

endorsement. The endorsement as it stood originally reads that PW1 himself

had taken the accused and Ex. P1 to the Police Station. However, there is a

correction in the endorsement made at the foot of Ex.P1 and it is made to

appear that the accused was sent to the Police Station along with Ex. P1 and

other material records only with PW7, village menial. PW7 would state that

he went to the Police Station where he presented the accused as well  as

Exs.Pl and P3 to the Sub-Inspector  of Police, examined as PW10 in this

case.  PW 10 had also stated so. But, in the same breadth, PW7 stated that

5

he reached the  Police  Station  at  12  in  the  night  i.e.,  in  the  midnight  of

29.5.1990; waited there for one hour; the Inspector of Police came and gave

Ex. P1 only to him. He knows the difference between a Sub-Inspector and

an Inspector. If the evidence of PW7 is accepted, it will show beyond doubt

that he had reached the Police Station only, in the midnight of 29.5.1990

and Ex. P1 had been handed over by him only to the Inspector of Police.,

Ex.  P15  is  the  printed  First  Information  Report.  The  evidence  of  PW10

shows that Ex.Pl had come to be registered in the Police Station at 10 p.m.

on 29.5.1990. Though under normal circumstances,  the evidence of PW7

regarding the time at which he reached the Police Station and to whom he

had handed over the material records and the accused would not assume any

importance  if  there  are  any  other  direct  circumstance  in  favour  of  the

prosecution, yet, in view of the fact that the prosecution, in this case, rests

only  upon  the  extra  judicial  confession  statement  which  does  not  find

corroboration at all on general particulars, this evidence of PW7, definitely

cannot be brushed aside while appreciating the case of the prosecution.

6. One other  circumstance  in  the  evidence  of  PW 7 which  definitely

casts doubt on the case of the prosecution is that he stated that after giving

the  material  records  at  the  Police  Station,  he  went  back  home  and  the

6

Observation  Mahazar  and  other  material  records  were  prepared  by  the

Investigating  Officer  commencing  from 6  a.m.  on  30.5.1990.  Therefore,

according to PW7, after he handed over the material records at the Police

Station, he went home and again participated in the exercise done by the

Investigating Officer only from 6 a.m. onwards on the following morning.

However,  it  is  seen  from the  evidence of  PW 14 that  the preparation of

records had all  been done, right from the midnight  of 29.5.1990 itself  in

which PW7 actively participated. If this piece of evidence of PW14 which

stands corroborated by contemporaneous documents is  accepted, then the

oral evidence of PW7 that he had handed over the material records to the

Inspector  of  Police  alone  cannot  be  totally  brushed  aside  as  inadvertent

evidence.  Why  PW  7  wants  to  withhold  even  this  piece  of  correct

information in Court, namely, the time at which the material records starting

from Ex.P4 had come to be prepared in a conduct can be definitely taken

into account to doubt the evidence of PW7 and Ex.P1 would not have been

registered at 10 p.m. as spoken to by PW 10.

7. When  an  extra  judicial  confession  is  given  to  the  Village

Administrative Officer,  he goes  to  the  scene of  occurrence;  observes  the

dead  body as  well  as  the  scene;  satisfies  himself  about  the  truth  of  the

7

statement  given by the  person concerned and then,  prepares the  material

records. In this case, he did not do anything of that sort. Over and above all

this PW1 has categorically admitted he knows that when an extra judicial

confession statement is given to him, he should prepare not only a duplicate

of the same but also prepare a duplicate of the Yadast which must be sent to

the Court by him. He had categorically admitted that he neither sent Ex.P1

nor Ex.P3 to the Court. He had been a Village Administrative Officer of ten

years standing. The purpose of sending documents like Exs.Pl and P3 to the

Court  and  the  copies  of  the  same  to  the  Police  is  to  eliminate  false

implication and to add credibility to the extra judicial confession statement

itself.  The failure on the part  of PW1 to send the material  records to the

Court,  especially,  when  he  was  aware  of  his  duty  in  that  regard  is  yet

another  circumstance  which  is  sufficient  to  doubt  the  entire  case  of  the

prosecution put through PWs 1 and 7.   

8. The  High  Court  has  rightly  held  that  the  prosecution  version  is

unacceptable.   

9. We find no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court to warrant

interference.   

8

10. The appeal is dismissed.

             ………….....................................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

         ………….……….........................J.

        (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, November 28, 2008

9