G. Selvaraj,
M. Suseela Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] INSC 738 (16 September 1997)
M. M.
PUNCHHI, S. P. KURDUKAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
M. Suseela
etc.
V. State
of Tamil Nadu Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar Hon'ble Mr. Justice
M. Jagannadha Rao S. Muralidhar, Adv. for the appellants V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
for the Respondent
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
M. Suseela
V. State of Tamil Nadu WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 502 OF 1994
S.P.
KURDUKAR, J.
For
committing the murder of Seethalakshmi, her husband Selvaraj (A-1) and Suseela
(A-2) - the wife of elder brother of A-1 were out up for trial for the offences
punishable under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions
Court. West Thanjavur at Thanjavur vide its judgment dated March 23, 1987
convicted both the accused under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced both
of them to suffer life imprisonment and RI for three years respectively. Two
separate appeals were filed by A-1 and A- 2 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and on scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the High Court by its common judgment dated July 22, 1993 dismissed the same. It is against
this judgment of the High Court, A- 1 and A-2 by Special Leave have filed two
separate Criminal Appeals Nos. 502 of 1994 and 501 of 1994 respectively to this
Court. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being
disposed of by this judgment.
2. A
marriage between A-1 and Seethalakshmi (since deceased) which took place on or
about October, 1984 was proved to be unhappy within a short time. The elder
brother of A-12, A-2 and her two minor children and Seethalakshmi were staying
in one room tenement at village Ariyathidal, Taluka Kumbakonam in Thanjavur
district. A-1 at the relevant time was doing the work of rickshaw puller and
was earning his livelihood. It was alleged by the prosecution that within ten
days of marriage, A-1 sold away the gold ring presented to him at the time of
wedding and soon thereafter, he also disposed of all jewellery items given to Seethalakshmi
during her marriage. On query made by Seethalakshmi about her jewellery items,
A-1 got annoyed and beat her with the belt. It appears that on a complaint by Seethalakshmi
to the Gram Panchayat in respect of ill treatment meted out to her, a meeting
was held ad a fine of Rs.15/- was impose on A-1, Seethalakshmi also suspected
the conduct of A-1 as it was rumoured that he was having illicit relations with
A-2. Being fed up with this atmosphere, Seethalakshmi came to her parents
house. Vijayalakshmi (PW 1) and Thyagarajan (PW 3), parents of Seethalakshmi
consoled her and sent her back to the house of A-1 with an advice not to get
depressed by such incidents and things would be set right in due course. It was
further alleged by the prosecution that a week prior to the date of incident, Seethalakshmi
along with A-1, his brother Subramaniam and A- 2 came to the house of parents
of Seethalakshmi to celebrate a local festival called "Thali"(the
sacred thread tied on the brides neck at the time of marriage). At that time,
A-1 insisted that his mother-in-law should give money on this occasion. Due to
financial constraints, Vijayalakshmi (PW 1) could not meet the said demand which
according to the prosecution widened the strained relations further between the
couple. Seethalakshmi thereafter returned to her matrimonial house but within a
week her parents received a message that A-1 was always quarreling with her for
not satisfying his demand. Seethalakshmi during her stay at her parents house
complained to them that A-1 was ill treating her for money and causing a lot of
harassment to her. The quarrels between Seethalakshmi, A-1 and A-2 were known
to the persons residing in the adjacent houses. Shanmugham (PW 3) and his wife Pushpavalli
(PW 4) were the neighbours and were residing on the backside of the house of
A-1.
3.
Prosecution then alleged that on 11th April. 1985, at about 11.00 a.m., A-1 and A-2 picked up a quarrel with Seethalakshmi.
Shanmugham (PW 3) went and inquired with A-1 and A-2 as to what the matter was
and thereafter he left for Kumbakonam. Pushpavalli (PW 4), a house wife also
heard the quarrels between Seethalakshmi, A-1 and A-2, At about 12.00 noon, Krishnamurthi
(PW 6), a close relative came to meet Seethalakshmi and on inquiry with the
accused, he was told that she had gone to Kumbakonam. Soon thereafter, A-1 and
A-2 left on a bicycle. Shanmugham (PW 3) at about 1.30 p.m.
returned
to his house and at that time, A-1 told him that Seethalakshmi committed a
suicide and her body was hanging to the ceiling. A-1 requested to help him in
lowering down the dead body but he refused to do so. On 11th April, 1985, at about 8.00 p.m., A-1 lodged the FIR stating that Seethalakshmi had
committed a suicide. A crime was accordingly registered under Section 174 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. On 12th April, 1985 at about 4.00 a.m., the
First Information Report was received from Sub Inspector Mr.
Rosario (PW 10), who then went to the spot
immediately and held the inquest on the dead body. He seized the incriminating
articles which were found in the room. The dead body was sent to the Govt. Hospital at Kumbakonam for post-mortem. After completing the
investigation, both the accused came to be charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Both the accused were arrested on
28th April, 1985 at Swami Malai bus stand.
4.
Both the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and according to
them, they were not present at the time of alleged incident. According to them,
when they returned home late in the afternoon, they saw the dead body of Seethalakshmi
hanging and therefore, A-1 went to the police Station and lodged the First
Information Report.
They
have been falsely implicated in the present crime and, therefore, they be
acquitted.
5. The
prosecution case entirely rested on the circumstantial evidence and in order to
prove the same, it examined s many as 15 witnesses of whom Sunder Raj (PW 5)
turned hostile. Prosecution also produced and relied upon the post mortem
examination report and the piece of cloth and a nylon saree (MOs 1 and 2) which
were seized under seizure panchanama from the place of incident.
6. A
serious challenge to the finding of the courts below that seethalakshmi died a
homicidal death was made before us. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, Seethalakshmi had committed suicide and the medical evidence eon
record also supports the theory of suicide propounded by the accused. We will
deal with this issue little later.
7.
Coming to the first circumstance, namely, the marriage between Seethalakshmi
and A-1 was a totally unhappy affair is proved by Vijaylakshmi (PW 1), Tyagarajan
(PW 2), Shanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4). Vijayalakshmi (PW 1) and Thyagarajan
(PW 2) are the parents of Seethalakshmi who had stated that within ten days of
the marriage. A-1 had started disposing of the ornaments given to Seethalakshmi
and on resistance by her, A-1 used to beat her. They further deposed that at
the time of "Thali" ceremony, A-1 demanded money but due to financial
constraints, they could not meet the said demand. Whenever Seethalakshmi used
to come to their house, she used to narrate various painful incidents including
beating and use of abusive language by A-1, For no rhyme or reason, A-1 used to
pick up quarrels with Seethalakshmi. This evidence of Vijayalakshmi (PW 1) and Thyagarajan
(PW 2) was accepted by the courts below and despite strenuous efforts, Mr. Murlidhar,
learned counsel was unable to persuade us to hold contract. The evidence of the
parents stood corroborated from the testimony of two neighbours, namely, Shanmugham
(PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4). They testified that there used to be often
quarrels between Seethalakshmi on one hand and A-1 A-2 on the other. After
going through the evidence of these witnesses, we have no manner of doubt that
there used to be quarrels in the house of A-1 and Seethalakshmi was required to
face the ill treatment meted out to her by the appellants.
8. The
next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that A-1 had every
opportunity to commit the crime in question as she was staying in the house of
A-1 along with A-2, her husband and two children. On the fateful day of occurrence,
viz., 11th of April, 1985, at about 11.00 a.m., Shanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4) heard the noise of quarrel
from the house of A-1. Shanmugham (PW 3) when went to inquire from the inmates
of the house of A-1, he was not given proper reply and it is his positive
evidence that at that time, A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and Seethalakshmi on
the other were quarreling. He then left for Kumbakonam.
Pushpavalli
(PW 4) who was in her house came out and saw the quarrels between Seethalakshmi
on one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other. She then returned to her house. At
about the same time, Krishnamurthi (PW 6) who happened to be the close relative
of Seethalakshmi came to the house of A-1 to enquire about her and he was told
that she had left for Kumbakonam. Sometime thereafter, Pushpavalli (PW 4) saw
A-1 and A-2 going on a bicycle. On careful consideration of the evidence of
these witnesses, the courts below found the same as trustworthy and accordingly
reached a conclusion that on 11th April, 1985 at about noon time, quarrel was
going on between Seethalakshmi on one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other and
soon thereafter both the accused left on bicycle.
We
have perused the evidence of these witnesses and we see no reason to upset the
said finding.
9. The
next vital circumstance is that Shanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4) saw Seethalakshmi
alive at about 11.00 or 11.30
a.m. in the company of
A-1 and A-2 when they were quarreling. Within two hours when Shanmugham (PW 3)
returned from Kumbakonam at about 1.30 p.m., A-1 told him that Seethalakshmi has committed a suicide. It is,
therefore, clear that Seethalakshmi died during this period of two hours. Shanmugham
(PW 3) then testified that A-1 met him near his house and he requested him to
help him in lowering down the dead body but, however, he refused to oblige him.
10.
Now what we are required to consider is whether death of Seethalakshmi was
homicidal or suicidal? In this behalf, a very crucial circumstance pressed into
service and proved by the prosecution was hat Seethalakshmi was seen alive in
the company of A-1 and A-2 and within two hours, she was found dead. A-1 and
A-2 therefore, were expected to give a reasonable explanation as to how Seethalakshmi
died. They however pleaded alibi and feigned ignorance as to what happened in
the afternoon. The only explanation given by A- 1 and A-2 was that when they
came home; they saw the dead body of Seethalakshmi hanging to the rafter of the
ceiling.
A very
crucial point that needs to be considered is whether the plea of suicide could
fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. the height of the roof and
rafter from the floor as 12'. A kerosense tin was seized from the place of
occurrence but the height of it could not be more than 2.
Having
regard to these circumstances, it appears to us an almost a difficult task for Seethalakshmi
to tie a nylon saree to the rafter in the ceiling at such a height and then
hang herself. In view of these circumstances, we rule out the probability of Seethalakshmi
committing a suicide.
11.
The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the disappearance of
A-1 and A-2 who were arrested on 28th April, 1985 at the bus stand. Although, both the accused had denied
that they were not in the town but this denial has no meaning and was rightly
rejected by the courts below.
12.
The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the medical evidence
of Dr. Swaranlata (PW 9) and the post mortem examination report to establish
that death of Seethalakshmi was a homicidal. Dr. Swaranlata (PW 9) held the
post mortem examination on the dead body of Seethalakshmi and report is Ex.P-4.
She testified that on both sides of the front region of the neck, several nail
scratch marks were seen. A contusion of about 4' x 3' was seen below the jaw
which was on the hyoid bone. The said injury, however, did not extend sideward
and backwards. The hyoid bone was fractured. On dissection, the extravasation
of the blood was found in many parts of the tissues beneath the skin. The right
chamber of the heart was filled with blood whereas the left chamber was empty.
The lungs were clotted with blood. The stomach was found empty and the small intestine
were filled with gas. The liver and spleen were clotted with blood. The cause
of death was that the deceased was strangulated and died due to the resultant
suffocation of breath. The nail scratch marks on the neck and the fracture of
the hyoid bone were due to strangulation. The doctor then opined that
indications for suffocation were seen. There was swelling of the face and the
blood vessels on the neck. Frothing blood was seen coming out from mouth and
nose. She then opined:
"When
a person hangs herself while alive there will marks on the neck region to
indicate this. Those marks were not present in this case. The swelling did not
extend to the rear of the neck. If it is a death by suffocation, the left
chamber of the hear will be empty and the right chamber will be full of blood.
If it is death due to suffocation by hanging, all chambers of the heart will be
empty. For the above reasons, it cannot be said that this is a case of death by
hanging".
Dr. Swaranlata
(PW 9) admitted during cross-examination that saliva was not dripping from the
mouth. Mr. Murlidhar while disputing the medical evidence drow our attention to
a Treatise lyons Medical Jurisprudence 10th Edition
page 353.
He
heavily relied upon the passage at page 353 which reads thus:- "Marks of
saliva trickling down from one or other angle of the mouth indicate that the
body was hanged during life; their absence does not show that death had taken
place before the body was hanged." We have gone through the evidence of
Dr. Swaranlata (PW 9) and the post mortem report (Ex.P-4) and we find that
there are certain loopholes but one thing is certain that deceased and nail
marks around the neck an in case of suicide; there could not have been any
possibility of any such nail marks. We are, therefore, of the considered view
that the theory of suicide set up by the appellants was an afterthought. We,
therefore, hold that Seethalakshmi died a homicidal death.
13.
Now the important question that falls for our determination is as to whether on
the basis of the above circumstances and the material on record, could it be
said beyond reasonable doubt that both the appellants were responsible for
causing the death of Seethalakshmi. As far as the complicity of A-2 is
concerned, the only evidence on record is that a quarrel was going on in the
house of A-1 between him and A-2 on one had and Seethalakshmi on the other.
Neither Shanmugham (PW 3) nor Pushpavaili (PW 4) had stated that they inquired
from A-2 as to what was the matter and why the quarrel was going on. All that
their evidence indicated was that they heard the noise of quarrel assuming that
A-2 was in the house that by itself would not lead to a conclusion that she had
also participated in committing the crime. The only circumstance used by the
courts below against A-2 was that A-1 was having illicit relations with A-2 and
it was because of this A-2 had participated in the said crime. Except the bare
words, in the nature of hearsay evidence of Vijayalakshmi (PW 1), Thyagarajan
(PW 2), Shanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4), there was no other reliable
evidence on record. Even these witnesses stated that they overhead about the
illicit relations for which there might not be any foundation. The evidence of Vijayalakshmi
(PW 1), Thyagarajan (PW 2), Shanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4) also did
not indicate that A-2 had at any time caused ill treatment for money from the
parents of Seethalakshmi. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-2 has shared a common intention to commit
the murder of Seethalakshmi and/or cause disappearance of the evidence to
screen away the offender. It is in these circumstances, we give the benefit of
doubt to A-2 and acquit her of all the charges.
On
careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of
the considered view that the order on conviction and sentence of G. Selvaraj
(A-1) suffers from no infirmity and therefore, calls for no interference.
14.
For the foregoing conclusions, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1994 filed
by M. Suseela (A-2). The orders of conviction and sentence passed against her
by both the courts below are quashed and set aside and she is acquitted of all
the charges. The bail bonds of M. Suseela (A-2) to stand cancelled. Criminal
Appeal No. 502 of 1994 filed by G. Selvaraj (A-1) is dismissed.
Back