- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nadimuthu v. State
Factual and Procedural Background
PW 1 (wife of the deceased) lived in a joint family with her husband, their two young children, and the husband’s father (Accused 4) and three brothers (Accused 1-3). On the night of 14-7-1994 the deceased demanded money from his father, was refused, and allegedly threatened him. Acting on Accused 4’s instructions, Accused 1-3 bound the deceased with a rope, beat him with a wooden reaper, strangled him, and forced pesticide into his mouth, causing death. Several villagers (including PW 4) briefly witnessed parts of the assault but were warned not to interfere.
Immediately after the incident the accused coerced PW 1 into giving a false account to the Village Administrative Officer, stating that the deceased fell from a bicycle. Fifteen days later, after her father’s arrival, she gave a true account before the Judicial Magistrate (Ext. P-2).
The Sessions Court on 13-12-1996 convicted all four accused under Section 302 read with Sections 34 & 114 and under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms. The Madras High Court dismissed their appeal on 3-3-2005; the appeal of Accused 4 abated due to his death. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges that High Court judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence of PW 1, given the earlier inconsistent statement to the Village Administrative Officer, was reliable enough to sustain the conviction.
- Whether any infirmity existed in the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court warranting interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- PW 1’s credibility was impugned because she initially told the Village Administrative Officer that her husband died from a bicycle fall, casting doubt on her subsequent testimony implicating the appellants.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found PW 1’s in-court testimony “inspiring confidence,” noting that her account was corroborated by the medical evidence (post-mortem injuries) and by eyewitness PW 4. The inconsistency in her earlier statement was attributed to duress and threats from the accused immediately after the murder. The Court accepted her explanation that fear for her own safety compelled her to give a false version initially, and held that this did not undermine her credibility at trial once the coercive atmosphere had lifted.
Further, the Court observed that the sequence of events narrated by PW 1 matched the injuries described in the post-mortem report, reinforcing reliability. Because the trial and appellate courts had concurrently found the appellants guilty on “overwhelming evidence,” the Supreme Court saw no reason to re-appreciate the facts or disturb the concurrent findings.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; conviction and sentences upheld.
The practical consequence is that the life imprisonment and other sentences imposed on Accused 1-3 remain intact. The judgment does not articulate any new legal principle; its impact is confined to affirming the concurrent factual findings and reinforcing that an initial statement made under threat does not necessarily destroy later credible testimony.
Markandey Katju, J.— This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3-3-2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1997. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The prosecution case is that PW 1 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased was the elder brother of Accused 1 to 3. Accused 4 is the father of the deceased and Accused 1 to 3. PW 1 is the daughter-in-law of Accused 4. The deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of Sodiankadu Village. PW 1 married the deceased about 9 years prior to the date of occurrence. PW 1 and the appellants herein lived as a joint family. It is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. PW 1 was having a five-and-a-half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time of occurrence. PW 1's father was looking after his daughter and children. On 14-7-1994 at about 9.30 p.m the deceased came on a bicycle to his house. PW 1 offered him food, but he refused to eat. He enquired from PW 1 as to where his father was. At that time, Accused 4, the father of the deceased was in the house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs 500 from him, but he refused to give him the money since he was allegedly leading a wayward life. The deceased threatened Accused 4. At that time, Accused 1 to 3 were sitting in the tractor shed. The mother of the deceased was in the kitchen. Accused 4 decided to finish off the deceased since he had threatened him. Suddenly Accused 1 chased the deceased and caught hold of him and Accused 4 instructed Accused 3 to bring a rope. There was a street light burning at that time. Accused 1 to 3 tied the deceased with the rope. On seeing that, PW 1 shouted and the deceased also asked them to leave him. After tying the deceased, they brought him to a tractor shed. Immediately, Accused 1 took a wooden reaper and beat the deceased on his forehead. Blood oozed out from his forehead. PW 1 cried and the deceased also shouted asking them to leave him. At that time, PW 4 came there and asked them as to why they were beating the deceased. The accused told him that it being their family affair, he should not interfere. Immediately PW 4 left the place. Thereafter, Accused 1 attacked the deceased again with the wooden reaper on his right wrist. PW 6 and one Gangammal intervened and asked them as to why they were attacking the deceased. They were also warned by the accused not to interfere, since it was their family affair. Thereafter, they also left the place. Even after the attack, since the deceased did not breathe his last, Accused 3 brought a rope and Accused 1 and 2 tied it on the neck of the deceased and strangled him. Further, Accused 3 brought pesticide at the instance of Accused 4. Accused 1 held the head of the deceased and Accused 2 poured the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased. PW 1 who was standing outside shouted. Immediately, the mother-in-law sprinkled some water on her face. The deceased was found dead. On receipt of the information, the villagers came to the scene of occurrence. The accused threatened PW 1 that she will also meet the same fate as the deceased if she told the truth. Hence, before the Village Administrative Officer, PW 1 stated everything as instructed by the accused, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ext. P-1. The same was forwarded along with the report, Ext. P-6 to Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station through a menial servant. Thereafter, the father of PW 1 reached there and asked her as to what transpired. She narrated to him what really happened as also to the police. After fifteen days, she also gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, which was marked as Ext. P-2.
3. In the post-mortem report the injuries as mentioned on the body of the deceased are as follows:
“1. 4 cm × 1 cm bone exposed lacerated injury present just above the right mastoid region.
2. 2 cm × ½ cm × skin depth lacerated injury over the left eyebrow region.
3. Two ligature markings, lower one just 2 cm above the sternoclavicular junction. Another one about 4 cm above the sternoclavicular junction.
4. 1 cm × ½ cm × skin depth lacerated injury over the right elbow region.”
4. The trial court vide its judgment dated 13-12-1996 found the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 IPC as also Section 364 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment mentioned in the said judgment.
5. Against that judgment an appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed. However, it was observed in the judgment that since Accused 4 had died his appeal had abated.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We see no reason to disbelieve PW 1 and PW 4. PW 1 was the wife of the deceased and her evidence inspires confidence. She has stated that Accused 4 instructed Accused 3 to bring a rope and then Accused 1, 2 and 3 tied the deceased with the rope and brought him to a tractor shed and Accused 1 took a wooden reaper and beat the deceased on his forehead. When the deceased cried PW 4 came there and questioned the accused as to why they were beating the deceased but he was told not to meddle in the family affairs and hence he left. Thereafter, Accused 1 again attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper. Accused 3 brought a rope and Accused 1 and 2 tied it on the neck of the deceased and strangled him. Further, Accused 3 brought pesticide at the instance of Accused 4. Accused 1 held the head of the deceased and Accused 2 poured the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW 1 had earlier given a different version to the Village Administrative Officer stating that her husband had fallen down from a bicycle. However, PW 1 has stated in her evidence that the statement before the Village Administrative Officer was made at that time because she was terrified at that time and was told by the accused that they would kill her if she told the truth. At that time she had no support from anyone, and it was only after arrival of her father that she got the courage to speak the truth. Hence, we are of the opinion that her statement made to the Village Administrative Officer was under duress and threat, and her evidence given before the trial court is credible and is supported by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW 4 and other witnesses.
8. The accused have committed a heinous crime and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Alert