State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
Karuppasamy  INSC 1992 (20 November 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2002 State
of Tamil Nadu ....Appellant Versus Karuppasamy ....Respondent
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
`accused'). Learned Sessions Judge Tirunelveli, had found the accused guilty of
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the `IPC') and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
Kamalam is the
deceased in this case. She is the daughter of P.W.2.
P.Ws 1, 5 and 6 are
the sons of P.W.2 and incidentally, they are the brothers of Kamalam. The
accused is the husband of Kamalam. Even prior to their marriage, on account of
their acquaintance, Kamalam conceived. Thereafter, their marriage took place.
The family of the accused wanted a sum of Rs.4,000/- to be given at the time of
their marriage, which was accordingly provided by P.W.1. Six months after their
marriage, Kamalam gave birth to a child. The accused had developed an illicit
intimacy with a lady called Parvathi. Since Kamalam objected to it, there were
quarrels between the accused and Kamalam often. Around 10.00 a.m. on 12.9.1990,
P.W.2 was in her house. She came to know that her daughter was in flames.
Immediately, P.W.2 went to the house of Kamalam. At that time, P.W.2 found some
burn injuries above the hip of her daughter. Kamalam was made to rest on the
pial of her house. PWs.1 and 5 are masons by profession. On that day, they were
working in the house of the brother in law of the accused. P.W.2 sent word to
them about the incident. Immediately, P.Ws 1, 5, 6 and another person went to
the house of Kamalam, where they found Kamalam lying on the pial with burn
injuries. The accused was also by her side at that time.
When Kamalam was
asked as to how she came to sustain the burn injuries, she replied that,
"She objected to her husband's relationship with Parvathi; the accused
asserted that he would continue to have such relationship.
Whenever she objected
to her husband's relationship with Parvathi, the accused used to threaten her
stating that, he would pour kerosene and set fire to her; she told her husband
that she is prepared even to die for the sake of her husband severing his
relationship with Parvathi; immediately the accused picked up a kerosene tin;
poured kerosene on her head and set fire to her". P.W. 3 & 4 did not
support the prosecution. A taxi was arranged for and in that taxi, Kamalam was
transported to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai. P.Ws 1, 2 and others
accompanied Kamalam to the hospital.
P.W.8 is the Medical
Officer in the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli. At 12.50 p.m. on 12.9.1990,
Kamalam was brought before him and he was informed that she had come to sustain
the burn injuries at the hands of her husband, by his pouring kerosene and
setting fire to her. Kamalam was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital. PW 8
found extensive burn injuries on the person of Kamalam. He sent Ex.P4 to the
police. Ex.P5 is the intimation sent by him to the Magistrate to record the
dying declaration of Kamalam. P.W.11 is the Trainee Magistrate, who reached the
said hospitalat 2.00 p.m. on that day. Doctor Kanchana was by the side of
Kamalam at that time. She certified that Kamalam was conscious and oriented to
give a statement. He examined Kamalam and recorded her statement. Ex.P11 is the
dying declaration of Kamalam. In Ex.P.11, Kamalam had put her left thumb
impression. P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P.4/intimation, went to the hospital,
examined Kamalam and recorded a statement from her. The statement so recorded
from Kamalam was read over to her and after she affirmed the same, her left
thumb impression was obtained on it. Ex.P.1 is that complaint. P.W.12, over
telephone, sent an intimation regarding the crime to the Investigating Police
Station. Accordingly, a Head Constable from the Investigating Police Station
came to the police out-post; collected Exs. P.1 and P.4 and handed over the
same to P.W.13. P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He collected Exs.P.1 and
P.4 from P.W.13 and registered it in Crime No.400/90 for the offence punishable
under Section 307 I.P.C. He sent the material records to the Court as well as
to the higher officials.
Ex.P.12 is the F.I.R.
He handed over the material records to the Inspector of Police personally.
Despite treatment given to Kamalam, she died at about 7.50 p.m. on 15.9.1990.
P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who sent Ex.P.6 to the police outpost at
Tirunelveli. Ex.P7 is the case sheet. On receipt of Ex.P.6, the police out-post
at Tirunelveli, passed on that message to the Investigating Police Station over
telephone. Ex.P.13 is the death intimation, which was handed over at the
Investigating Police Station. At 9.00 p.m. on 12.9.1990, after receiving a copy
of Ex.P.12, P.W.17 went to the scene; at 10.00 p.m. on that day, in the
presence of P.W.7 and another, he prepared Ex.P.2/observation mahazar and
Ex.P.17/plan. At 10.30 p.m. on that day, from the scene of occurrence, P.W.17
recovered a plastic can containing kerosene; a match box and a partly burnt
turkey towel (M.Os 1 to 3), under Ex.P.3 attested by witnesses. P.W.17 examined
P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 and recorded their statements. Further witnesses were examined
by him on 13.9.1990 and their statements were recorded. On receipt of the death
intimation at 7.50 p.m. on 15.9.1990 from P.W.15, P.W.17 altered the section of
offence into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared the altered printed
F.I.R. Ex.P.18 is the altered F.I.R. It was sent to the Court as well as to the
higher officials. As death had taken place within 1-1/2 years after the
marriage of the accused with the deceased/Kamalam, a copy of the F.I.R. was
sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, having jurisdiction. P.W.16 is the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. went to
the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between
11.00 a. m. and 1.00 p. m. on 16.9.1990. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. During
inquest, P.W.16 examined P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and another and recorded their
statements. P.W.17, arrested the accused on 17.9.1990.
The Doctor who
conducted post mortem report was of the opinion that the deceased died due to
burn injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. The
accused pleaded innocence and, therefore, the trial was held. In his
examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
the `Code') the accused took the stand that he was not in the house when the
occurrence took place. When he returned from work place he found his wife with
burn injuries and immediately he rushed her to the hospital. The prosecution
relied on two sets of evidence; one related to the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2,
4, 5 & 6.
Admittedly they were
not eye witnesses. They have been examined to prove what the deceased declared
when she was alive and was fighting for a life, about the cause of her death.
The next set of evidence is primarily the dying declaration Ex.P.11 recorded by
(PW 11), the Magistrate. The Doctor who was attending the deceased as an indoor
patient was by the side of the patient all through. PW 11's evidence indicated
that she was conscious, oriented and was in a fit condition to give the
statement. Relying on the aforesaid evidence the Trial Court found the accused
6 In appeal the High
Court was of the view that PW 11 should have inquired from the deceased as to
whether she was in a fit condition to make the statement. The doctor has not
been examined but at the foot of the dying declaration her opinion was
recorded. High Court found that the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 about
the dying declaration was not believable. It also discarded evidence of PW 1 on
the ground that he was one of the brothers of the deceased. The Doctor, PW8 had
recorded that the deceased's condition was dexterous and the level of
consciousness would depend upon several factors. Reference was made to the
evidence of PW 9 to conclude that the evidence of PW 8 was not free from doubt.
The High Court noted that, the FIR (Exh.P12) disclosed that the husband brought
the intimation from the hospital to the police. Because of the aforesaid
factors, the High Court considered the prosecution version to be full of
suspicious circumstances and, as noted above, the acquittal was directed.
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
analysis made by the High Court is clearly erroneous. No reason has been
assigned to discard the dying declaration. The criticism of the High Court that
PW 11 entirely went by the version of the Doctor, should nothave been treated
as a factor to discard the testimony of PW 11. There are certain other factual
erroneous conclusions also.
respondent has not appeared in spite of service of notice.
conclusions of the High Court that PW 11 should not have gone by what the
doctor i.e. Dr. Kanchana said and should have made independent enquiries, is to
say the least an absurd conclusion. The High Court has recorded as follows:
shows that Doctor Kanchana certified that Kamalam was conscious oriented and
was in a fit condition to give the statement. Doctor Kanchana was present by
the side of PW 11 throughout. It appears from the evidence of PW 11 that he was
totally carried away by the opinion of doctor Kanchana. His evidence in chief
does not show that he enquired Kamalam to find out as to whether she was
conscious oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement."
is not understood as to what the High Court meant by observing that PW 11
should have found out from the deceased as to whether she was conscious,
oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement. The doctor who was
attending to the deceased has clearly certified that she wasin a fit condition
to make the statement. The Doctor has made the following observation:
the patient Smt. Kamalam was conscious at the time of taking the dying
declaration and taken in my presence."
High Court was of the view that the evidence of PW 11 shows that her
satisfaction was a subjective satisfaction solely on the basis of the opinion
of the Doctor. There is nothing wrong in such a satisfaction being arrived at
because the doctor is an appropriate person to certify on that aspect.
addition, we find that the High Court recorded the finding that the accused
brought the intimation from the hospital to the police station which is Ex.P
12, the FIR. The factual position is clearly to the contrary. The accused did
not take the intimation because PW 12 who was working as Grade I constable at
the out post police station attached to the medical college hospital received
Ex. P 4 intimation from the hospital on 12.9.1990 at 1.15 PM.
to PW 12, after receiving the intimation he went to the hospital, examined the
deceased who was undergoing treatment for burn injuries. The deceased gave the
statement regarding the occurrence which was recorded as Ex. P 1 and he sent
the intimation through the phone to the police regarding the substance of the
statement. The High Court has also not assigned any reason as to why the
declaration made before PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 was unreliable. The Trial Court
had analysed their evidence and come to the conclusion that the deceased made
statement before them as to the cause of death clearly implicating the accused.
Similarly the evidence of the doctor, PW 8 has been discarded without even
indicating reason for doing so.
being the position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable and is
set aside. The respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the
remainder of sentence. The appeal is allowed.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)