[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2007

Arumugam  ….Appellant

Versus

The State represented by its Inspector of Police ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This  appeal  by way of  special  leave  at  the instance  of  the  

solitary accused arises out of the following facts:   

2. Saroja was the second wife of PW2, the appellant’s father and,  

therefore,  the  step mother  of  the  appellant.   PW5 was the  

appellant’s step sister having been born out of the marriage of  

PW2  and  the  deceased  whereas  PW3 was  the  husband  of  

PW5.  All the persons aforementioned were residents of village  

Thuluvaspushpagiri  and  were  agriculturists  by  profession.  

PW2 had lost his first wife, the mother of the appellant, about  

22 years prior to the date of the incident, and one year after  

her death PW2 had married the deceased Saroja.  It appears

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

that  Saroja  was  a  lady  of easy  virtue  and  was  involved  

with several  persons in the village  which had annoyed the  

appellant and he often asked her to behave in a dignified way.  

The deceased, however, told the appellant that it is not his  

business to interfere in her affairs as she was an independent  

person and entitled to live her life as she pleased.  Saroja’s  

affairs, however, continued to rankle the appellant.

3. At about 9 a.m. on 19th March 2000, PW5 and the deceased  

went to the field to perform their daily agricultural operations.  

At about 11 a.m. the appellant also arrived at that place and  

called  out  to  the  deceased  to  help  him  lift  a  bundle  of  

firewood.   The deceased walked towards the appellant  and  

both of them went into the sugarcane field.   A short while  

later the appellant alone returned and when questioned by  

PW5 told him that he had strangled and killed Saroja.  The  

appellant also appeared before PW1 the Village Administrative  

Officer at 4 p.m. and made an extra judicial confession that  

he had murdered his step mother.  The statement given by  

the appellant was reduced to writing (Ex.P-1) by PW1 and he  

also  took  the  appellant  to  Santhavasal  Police  Station  and  

handed him over along with the document Ex.P-1 to the Head  

Constable.   A  case  was  accordingly  registered  against  the  

appellant  under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.  The  investigation  

was,  however,  taken over  by PW15 the Inspector  of  Police,  

Arni  Taluk,  who  was  holding  the  additional  charge  of  

Santhavasal  Police  Station.   PW15  reached  the  place  of  

2

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

incident  and  recorded  the statement  of  various  witnesses  

and on the statement made by the appellant recovered the  

rope used for strangling the deceased.  The dead body was  

also  sent  to  the  hospital  for  its  post-mortem  examination  

which was performed the next day at about 4 p.m. by PW10,  

the  Civil  Assistant  Surgeon,  attached  to  the  Government  

Hospital, who found the following injury on the dead body:

“A  ligature  mark  seen  above  thyroid  cartilage  encircling  the  neck  completely.  The width of the ligature mark was 3 cm in  size.”

4. The Doctor after receiving the report of the Chemical Analyst  

opined that  the death  was on account  of  Asphyxia  due to  

strangulation and that the death had occurred between the  

27-30 hours prior to the autopsy.  On the completion of the  

investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant.  

The trial court on the basis of the evidence of PW1 to whom  

the appellant had made the extra judicial confession which  

had been reduced to the writing Ex.P1 which formed the basis  

of FIR and the fact that the medical evidence supported the  

contents of the extra judicial confession and that as per the  

statement of PW5 the appellant had often called her mother  

as  being  of  low  character  woman  which  constituted  the  

motive  for  the  offence,  convicted  and  sentenced  him  to  

imprisonment  for  life  under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.   The  

judgment  of  the  trial  court  was  thereafter  challenged  in  

3

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

appeal  in  the  High  Court which  too  has  been  dismissed  

leading to the filing of the present appeal.

5. It has been argued that the conviction of the appellant only  

on the basis of the extra judicial confession was not called for  

in the light of the fact that PW2 the father of the appellant,  

his sister PW5 and her husband PW3 had turned hostile and  

had not supported the prosecution.  It has accordingly been  

contended that there was,  in fact,  no valid evidence which  

could be utilized for making an order of conviction.  It has  

also  been submitted  that  as per  the  prosecution  story  the  

statement Ex.P1 had been recorded at 4 p.m. but the FIR on  

its basis had been recorded at 6 p.m. though the office of the  

Village Administrative Officer and the Police Station shared a  

common wall, was also a factor fatal to the prosecution story,  

as the delay had not been explained.  It has also been pleaded  

that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence  

in the light of the fact that (as per the Doctor) the body was in  

a  decomposed  state  and  the  occurrence  had  therefore  

happened before 11 a.m. on the 19th March 2000.

6. The  learned  State  counsel  has,  however,  pointed  out  that  

both the trial court and the High Court on an appreciation of  

the  evidence  had  recorded  the  conviction  against  him and  

there  was  absolutely  no  reason  whatsoever  to  discard  the  

statement of PW1 to whom the appellant had made an extra  

4

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

judicial  confession  and that  the  medical  evidence  fully  

supported the prosecution story far from the contradicting it.  

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone  

through  the  record.   As  per  the  prosecution  story,  the  

incident happened at 11 a.m. on 19th March 2000 in the fields  

adjoining village Thuluvaspushpagiri.  Soon after committing  

the murder the appellant made a confession to PW5 his step  

sister  that  he  had  murdered  her  mother  and,  thereafter,  

repeated the same to PW1, the Village Administrative Officer  

who  recorded  the  same  in  Ex.P1  a  written  memorandum  

which was handed over in the Police Station at 6 p.m. leading  

to the registration of the FIR.  It is true that an extra judicial  

confession is often called a weak type of evidence but we find  

that the present case has certain distinctive features.  It is of  

significance that the appellant  had made the extra judicial  

confession to PW5 and thereafter to PW1 within a very short  

time and had not attempted to run away and he had been  

handed over to the police by the Village Administrative Officer  

at about 6 p.m. at the time when the FIR had been recorded.  

PW5 also admitted in her statement that the appellant was  

annoyed with the deceased as he suspected her of being of  

low character and an embarrassment to him and he had often  

asked her to mend her behaviour to which she had responded  

that  she  would  live  life  on  her  terms  and  it  was  not  his  

business to interfere in her life.  It is true that the appellant’s  

father PW4 and brother-in-law PW3 had turned hostile but  

5

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

their  evidence  would  have been merely to the effect that the  

appellant had found fault in the deceased’s behaviour and in  

the background of the statement of PW5 that the appellant  

was indeed annoyed with her mother, the factum of PWs.4  

and 3 having turned hostile  would not adversely affect  the  

prosecution story.

8. The  medical  evidence  far  from  contradicting  the  ocular  

evidence clearly supports it.   It  has been submitted by the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  body  was  in  a  

decomposed state on the 20th March 2000 at 4 p.m. when it  

was  subjected  to  the  post  mortem  examination  which  

indicated that the incident must have happened much before  

11 a.m.  There is  a  basic  flaw in this  evidence.   The Post  

mortem certificate  Ex.P8  shows  that  the  post  mortem had  

commenced at 4 p.m. and the finding was of a fracture in the  

body of the thyroid bone and that the deceased would appear  

to have died due to strangulation 27 to 30 hours prior to the  

commencement of the post-mortem.  In this background, it  

can, by no stretch of imagination, be said that the death had  

occurred prior to 11 a.m. on the 19th of March.   The cause of  

death  also  reveals  that  the  death  had  been  caused  by  

strangulation with a rope as there was ligature mark on the  

neck.  It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the  

appellant that as per the evidence of PW5 the deceased was a  

healthy  and  strong  woman  and  was  perhaps  physically  

stronger than the appellant.   An inference is, thus, sought to  

6

Crl. Appeal No.515/2007

be  drawn  that  in  this situation,  it  would  have  been  

well  nigh impossible  for  the appellant  to have strangulated  

her.  We absolutely find no merit in this submission as well.  

It is clear from the evidence that the appellant had prepared  

well for the day and had apparently hidden the rope in the  

field  much  earlier.   It  looks,  therefore,  that  the  deceased,  

though a strong woman, had been overwhelmed by a sudden  

attack and strangulated with the rope, as no other injuries  

which could show signs of a struggle, were found on the dead  

body.  

9. For the reasons mentioned above, we endorse the findings of  

the High Court and the trial court and dismiss the appeal.

……………………..J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)

…………………….J. (C.K.Prasad)

New Delhi, Dated:  July 28, 2010

7