REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1002         OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7253 of 2007)

Natraj Chinnappa Nair …Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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

Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed

by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment

of  a learned Additional  Sessions Judge,  Greater  Mumbai  in

the SC Case No. 1098 of 1998.  He was convicted for offence

1

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short the ‘IPC’).  

3. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

PSI Balwant Patil was working as a Station House Officer

in Tilak Nagar Police Station from 8 AM to 6 PM. At about 4.30

p.m.  one  taxi  halted  in  front  of  the  police  station.  A  lady

named Tulsibai Chinnappa got down from the said taxi and

came to  the  police  station and informed  the  Station House

officer Patil that her son Natraj has consumed Tik-20 Poison

and  he  has  been  brought  in  the  taxi.  The  Station  House

Officer rushed towards the taxi.  He is alleged to have made

inquiry form the person who was said to have consumed Tik

20 poison.  The said person purportedly stated before him that

he  assaulted  his  wife  in  a  hit  of  anger  and  he  himself

consumed  the  Tik  20  poison.   Nivas  Ayyer  and  Prakash

Muthkar were the other two persons sitting in the taxi.  The

person who was  said  to  have  consumed  the  Tik  20  poison

became restless and serious and thus he was sent to Rajawadi

Hospital  with P.C.  No.  5437.  PSI  Pail  along with PI  Shirole

2

went to the spot Panchsheel Nagar. Several people were found

to have gathered in front of one Kuchha road.  They entered

the  room  and  found  that  one  woman  lying  in  an  injured

condition in the room.  On inquiry, PSI  Patil  came to know

from one  Laxmi  Surya the sister  of  Natraj  that  the injured

woman is  the  wife  of  his  brother  Natraj  Nair.   The  injured

woman who was in a serious condition was sent to Rajawadi

Hospital.   Before  her  admission  in  the  hospital,  she  was

declared dead by the doctor on duty. PSI Patil filed complaint

on behalf of the State against the accused.  The offence under

Section 302 IPC was registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station at

Crime No. 143-98.

PSI Patil drew the inquest panchanama on the dead body

of Surya Natraj the dead.  Further investigation was carried by

PI Shirole.  He recorded the statements of the witnesses.  On

26.7.1998 he seized the clothes of the accused and drew the

panchanama. On 1.8.1998 he seized the chopper and blouse

at  the  instance  of  the  accused  Natraj  under  memorandum

discovery panchnama.  Accused  was arrested on 29.7.1998

3

when  he  was  discharged  from  the  hospital.   The  attached

properties were sent to the C.A. along with the covering letter

under signature of the Sr. PI Shirole on 10.8.1998.

Since accused abjured with guilt, eleven witnesses were

examined to substantiate the prosecution version.  The trial

court  found  that  though  the  case  rested  on  circumstantial

evidence and the chain of circumstances was complete and,

therefore, he must be punished for offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC.  Life imprisonment was imposed.  Before the

High  Court  the  stand  taken  was  that  the  circumstances

highlighted  by  the  prosecution  do  not  make  out  a  case  of

conviction of the accused.  The prosecution on the other hand

submitted that the circumstances clearly establish the offence

by the accused.

4. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant submitted that having regards to the circumstances

of the case, no case for conviction is made out.

4

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand

supported the order.  Circumstances highlighted by the trial

court and the High Court to find the accused guilty are the

evidence of Anil Das-PW 3 who had dropped the accused and

his wife  to their  house  in his rickshaw and narrated about

hurling  of  abuses  by  the  accused  to  his  wife.    After  the

assault  he  consumed  poison  and  was  taken  to  the  police

station by his mother and thereafter to the hospital where he

was treated by a doctor.   The  deceased  died  as a result  of

several  incised injury  on her body which were  caused by a

chopper.    Recovery  of  the  chocker  and  the  blouse  at  the

instance  of  the  accused  are  other  circumstances  which

conclusively established that the accused was in the room and

removed the blouse of his wife and thereafter assaulted her

with chopper.

6. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal

and the same is accordingly dismissed.

5

………………… …………J.

(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi: July 7, 2008

6