- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Paramasivam v. State Of Tamil Nadu
Structured Summary of the Judgment (Janarthanam J)
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused and the deceased, Kuppammal, were husband and wife residing in Pavalangudi Village. They had been on good terms for about two years prior to the incident on 17.8.1983, but the accused suspected his wife's fidelity and they frequently quarrelled.
On the morning of 17.8.1983 the deceased went to work in her fields carrying a weeding instrument (M.O.4). Several witnesses placed the deceased in the fields during the afternoon; P.W.5 saw the accused and deceased together at 2 p.m., later finding the deceased lying face down and the accused leaving the place. The deceased's mother (P.W.2) later found her daughter dead with cut injuries.
The accused presented himself at the police station at 7 p.m. and made a statement (Ex. P.1); the Sub-Inspector (P.W.9) registered Crime No.148/83 under Section 302 IPC. The police seized the accused's lungi and towel (M.O.1 and M.O.2). Investigation followed: an alleged weapon (M.O.3) was seized; photographs, rough sketch (Ex. P.15), an inquest (Ex. P.16) and postmortem (Ex. P.9) were undertaken; chemical and serological reports (Exs. P.12 and P.13) were obtained. The Inspector of Police filed a report under Section 173 CrPC on 10.9.1983 and the sessions court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution examined P.Ws 1–10, produced Exs. P.1–P.17 and marked material objects M.Os 1–11. The accused was questioned under Section 313 CrPC, denied involvement and did not call defence witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, leading to this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the materials (largely circumstantial) placed before the trial court were sufficient in law to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the specific pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution—(a) the accused's appearance at the police station with bloodstained clothes and his statement (Ex. P.1), (b) presence of the accused and deceased together around the time of the occurrence, (c) human blood on the accused's clothes (M.Os 1 and 2), and (d) the weapon (M.O.3) containing A-group blood matching the deceased—could, singly or cumulatively, establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The record is scanty and flimsy; the evidence is insufficient to fasten criminal liability on the accused.
- Even if the enumerated circumstances are true, they do not legally permit convicting the appellant for murder.
- The accused's statement (Ex. P.1) did not disclose precise information about where the weapon was concealed and therefore the recovery of the weapon cannot be treated as having been made in consequence of that information for the purposes of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Prosecution's Case (as presented in the opinion)
- The prosecution accepted there was no direct evidence and relied on circumstantial evidence summarized by the court: (1) accused appeared at the police station with bloodstained clothes and gave Ex. P.1 leading to recovery of M.O.3; (2) the accused and deceased were found together around the time of the occurrence and the accused left leaving the deceased lying face down; (3) accused's clothes (M.Os 1 & 2) contained human blood; (4) the weapon M.O.3 contained A-group blood matching the deceased.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged that the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence and proceeded to examine each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution.
First, the court examined the accused's conduct in appearing before the police and giving Ex. P.1. P.W.1 testified to the accused presenting himself and to the recording of Ex. P.1. The court noted nothing suggested P.W.1 bore any ill will towards the accused. However, the court observed that Ex. P.1 did not specify the exact place where the weapon was concealed; it only stated that the accused had thrown the weapon without precise details. Given this vagueness, the court found it unclear how P.W.10 could have located M.O.3 in the absence of the accused, and therefore held that it could not be said the weapon was recovered strictly "pursuant to" the accused's information so as to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the court declined to place weight and credibility on P.Ws.10 and 1 with respect to the recovery of M.O.3.
Second, as to presence at the scene and timing, the court reviewed witness testimony: P.W.4 saw the deceased working earlier; P.W.5 had stated he saw the accused and deceased together at 2 p.m. and later saw the deceased lying face down with the accused leaving. However, the court noted P.W.5 turned wholly hostile at trial. Although the prosecution produced his earlier statement to police, the court characterized the evidentiary value of that earlier statement as "practically nil" and held it could not be utilised by the prosecution.
Third, regarding scientific evidence, chemical and serological reports (Ex. P.12 and P.13) showed human blood on M.Os 1 and 2 and that M.O.3 contained human blood of group A (the deceased's blood group). The court observed there was nothing to indicate that the blood on M.Os 1 and 2 was of the same blood group as the deceased. While M.O.3 containing A-group blood might indicate the weapon was used in the commission of the offence, the court reiterated that M.O.3 was not shown to have been discovered as a direct result of the accused's confession in Ex. P.1. Even if the court treated the weapon as recovered pursuant to the accused's statement, it held that the recovery of the weapon and the blood findings, either singly or cumulatively, did not provide a legally sufficient foundation to fasten criminal liability upon the accused for murder.
The court emphasised that each proved circumstance, and the cumulative effect of all of them, fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder. On that basis, the court concluded that the materials were "grossly inadequate" to establish the accused's guilt.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The accused's conviction under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence imposed by the trial court were quashed; the accused was acquitted.
- Broader precedent: The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle or deliver an extensive precedent; rather, it applies standard principles governing reliance on circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and police statements, and the requirements for treating recoveries as consequent to accused's information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court expressly found that the particular combination of proved circumstances in this case was legally inadequate to sustain a murder conviction.
Note: This summary is prepared exclusively from the content of the provided opinion and does not introduce information beyond that text.
Page: HC206JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by Janarthanam J)
1. The accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court, has come forward with this appeal.
2. The brief facts are: The accused and Kuppammal (since deceased) are husband and wife. They are residents of Pavalangudi Village, ten K.M away from Mangalampettai Police Station. The spouses were in good terms for about two years prior to the occurrence, which happened on 17.8.1983 The accused actually suspected the fidelity of his wife and this led to frequent quarrels between them. The accused even went to the extent of complaining about the fidelity of his wife, the deceased to P.W 3, who, in turn, reprimanded the conduct of the deceased number of times, without any effect.
3. The deceased, on the morning of the day occurrence, went to her fields for work; P.W 4 is an-adjoining land-owner. He was also attending to certain agricultural operations in his field. The deceased was carrying on the weeding operations with an instrument ‘Kalaikottu’ (M.O 4). The agricultural operations in the field of P.W 4 was over by about 1 p.m P.W 5 had the opportunity to see the accused and the deceased in their fields at 2 p.m Thereafter, he saw the deceased lying on the ground with her face downwards and the accused leaving from the place. P.W 2, the mother of the deceased, finding that her daughter had not returned from the field, actually went in search of her and found her daughter lying deed with cut injuries on her person.
4. In the meanwhile, the accused appeared before P.W 9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai at 7 p.m and gave a statement, the admisible portion of which is Ex.P 1, which was attested by P.W 1. P.W 9 registered a case in crime No. 148/83 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Ex. P. 7 is the printed first information report sent to the court. He seized from the accused M.O 1 lungi and M.O 2 towel under Ex.P 2 attested by P.W 1.
Page: HC2075. Thereafter, P.W 10 the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the phone-message at 7.30 p.m proceeded to Mangalampettai police station, perused Ex.P 7 and took up further investigation. He went to the place where the material object M.O 3 Koduval was stated to have been dropped by the acused along with P.W 9 and P.W 1. He seized it under Ex.P 3 mahazar attested by P.W 1. At 9.30 p.m he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P 5 attested by P.W 1. He drew a rough sketch marked as Ex. P. 15. He caused photographs to be taken of the scene through the phtographor P.W 8. He held inquest over the body of the deceased between 10 and 12 midnight. He examined P.Ws 1 and 2, 5 and others during the inquest. Ex. P. 16 is the inquest report. He sent the body of the deceased through a constable for purposes of autopsy to the Government hospital, Ulundurpet.
6. P.W 6 the doctor attached to the Government hospital, Ulundurpet, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 18.8.1983 at 11.30 a.m Ex.P 9 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. The injuries found on the body of the deceased have been more fully described in Ex.P 9 certificate. The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by her 20 to 22 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He further opined that all the injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O 3 and the severence of the head is necessarily fatal.
7. On 23.8.1983, the Inspector of Police P.W 10 sent Ex.P 10 requisition to the court for sending the material objects for chemical examination. P.W 7, the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Ulundurpet sent the material objects to the Chemical. Examiner as per the directions of the Magistrate for the purpose of analysis under the original of Ex. P. 11 office copy of the letter. Ex. P. 12 and P. 13 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively.
8. After completion of the investigation, P.W 10 Inspector of Police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ulundurpet on 10.9.1983 for an offence under Section 302 of the Page: HC208Indian Penal Code appeared to have been committed by the accused.
9. Upon committal of the case, the learned sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and when quested as respects the charge framed against him, the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution, in proof of the charge, examined P.Ws 1 to 10, filed Exs.P 1 to P. 17 and marked M.Os 1 to 11.
11. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not choose the examine any witness on his side.
12. The learned Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore, on a perusal of the materials placed before him and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-and the learned Public Prosecutor, found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, giving rise to this appeal.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused would submit that the materials available on record are so scanty and flimsy as is not possible for the Court to fasten criminal liability upon the accused for any offence. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appeallant, we proceed to sift the materials available on record.
14. That there is no direct evidence and the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence available on record is admitted. The prosecution relies upon the following pieces of circumstances.
1. The conduct of the accused in appearing before the police station with bloodstained clothes and giving a statement Ex.P 1 which led to the recovery of M.O 3 weapon.
Page: HC2092. The deceased and the accused having been found together at or about the time of occurrence in their fields, and the accused going away from there, leaving the deceased lying on the ground with her face downwards and her subsequently, being found dead by her mother P.W 2 at about 3 p.m
3. The clothes of the accused viz. M.Os 1 and 2 were found to contain human blood; and
4. The weapon of offence M.O 3 was found to contain A group blood, which is the blood group of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even if there is evidence proving all these circumstances enumerated above, still it is not legally permissible to fasten criminal liability upon the appellant, leave alone the existence of any evidence towards establishing the circumstances.
15. The conduct of the accused in appearing at the police station and giving Ex.P 1 statement is spoken to by P.W 1. of course nothing is shown to say that P.W 1 is having any sort of animus or ill will towards the accused so as to falsely depose against the interest of the appellant while stating that on the day in question, the appellant had appeared before P.W 9 and Ex.P 1 statement was recorded. Ex.P 1 statement is stated to have resulted in the recovery of M.O 3 weapon. It is interesting to note that this weapon had not been recovered at the instance of the appellant-accused. The information contained in Ex.P 1 also does not disclose the exact place where the weapon was kept concealed by the appellant. What he has stated therein is that the weapon had been thrown by him and he was unable to give the exact details of the place where he had thrown it. In such a state of affairs, it is not known how it was possible for P.W 10 Inspector of Police to unearth the weapon M.O 3 in the absence of the accused. Even if it is recovered, it cannot be stated that the same had been recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant so as to make it an admissible piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In such a situation, Page: HC210we cannot give any weight and credibility to the testimony of P.Ws 10 and 1 with respect to the recovery of M.O 3 weapon.
16. No doubt it is true that there is the evidence of P.W 4, who deposed that while he was turning out agricultural operations in his field, he had seen the deceased doing weeding opeations in her field, which is lying adjacent to his field. The agricultural work in his field was over by 1 p.m and it appears that he had gone away from there and subsequently, the deceased and the accused were seen together in their field by P.W 5 at 2 p.m on the fateful day in question. At about 3 p.m the accused had abruptly left the field and the deceased at that time was found lying on the ground with her face downwards. On this aspect of the matter, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.W 5, who unfortunately turned hostile wholesale for the prosecution. The prosecution of course brought on record his earliest statement to the plice. The evidentiary value of his statement before the police is practically ‘nil’ and the net result is, his testimony cannot at all be utilised for any purpose whatever by the prosecution.
17. The closthes of the accused viz., M.Os 1 and 2 were found to contain human blood as disclosed by Ex. P. 12 and P. 13 the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively. There is nothing to indicate that the human blood that was available in these clothes were relatable to the bloodgroup of the deceased in the sense, the same belongs to the blood groups as that of the deceased. M.O 3 weapon was found to contain human blood of ‘A’ group, which is that of the deceased's blood group as disclosed by Ex.P 13 the report of the Seorlogist. The fact that the clothes of the accused M.Os 1 and 2 containing human blood is of no use to the prosecution in advancing its case to any extent in proving that the accused had any hand in the commission of the murder of the deceased, his wife. M.O 3 weapon containing ‘A’ group human blood which is the blood group of the deceased may indicate that the weapon had been utilised in the commission of the offence of murder. But, as already indicated, M.O 3 was not at all discovered pursuant to the confession given by the accused. Even if it is taken to have been recovered pursuant to the confession made Page: HC211by him, still it cannot be said that the same by itself can form the foundation for the prosecution case in mulcting the liability upon the accused for the offense of murder. Each of the proved circumstances by itself, or the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, can, by no stretch of imagination, be stated to prove that the accused was responsible for the commission of the murder of the deceased, his wife.
18. In view, of what has been stated above, it goes without saying that the materials available on record are grossly inadequate to come to the conclusion that the accused had a hand in the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased, his wife. The conviction and sentence imposed by the court below upon the accused are therefore not sustainable.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and Sentence imposed by the court below are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
Alert