Natraj Chinnappa Nair
Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008] INSC 1045 (7 July 2008)
Judgment
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
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
- Leave
granted.
- 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 punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the `IPC').
- 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 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- In
these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
.................................J.
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New
Delhi:
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
