LexPONNUSAMY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 303 ~ > PONNUSAMY A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2006) APRIL 10, 2008 B --+· [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Extra judicial confession - Husband killed wife and threw her body in canal - Few days c later made extra judicial confession - Dead body recovered from canal on disclosure statement made by him - Mother of deceased identified dead body- Conviction of husband based on circumstantial evidence - Justification of:;.. Held: Justified - Confession of husband led to discovery of facts which show D his connection with commission of crime - Since wife died in unnatural circumstances while she was in company of husband, he was expected to offer explanation thereof- Lack of explanation would be circumstantial evidence against him - Also, medical evidence did not negate prosecution case - E Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. Medical evidence - Hyoid bone - Absence of fracture in - Held: Not a proof to show that there was tio strangulation. Criminal trial - FIR - Delay in filing - Effect on F ""! prosecution case. Prosecution case was that the deceased was living with her mother after she separated from her first husband PW-9. The appellant demanded 2 acres of land in order to marry deceased. A deed of gift was executed in favour of G deceased by her father. As appellant's request for . --- registration of property in his name was not acceded to, he left the house of PW-1 after 3 days of marriage. After a year he intended to live with deceased. As the deceased 303 H 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A also agreed to the said proposal, they left the house of PW-1 on 5.3.1997. She was not seen thereafter. On 10.3.1997, appellant met PW-2 and informed him that deceased had gone away from his house. The next day, PW-10 saw appellant at the bus stop. When PW-1 O 8 questioned the deceased's whereabouts, appellant disclosed that he murdered her on 9.3.1997. He also confessed before the Village Administrative Officer PW- 18. The police refused to register the FIR against appellant as the dead body of deceased was not recov~red and C there was no other evidence with regard to the murder. The dead body was recovered on 14.3.1997 from canal. Thereafter, FIR was registered. PW-1 identified the dead body on the basis of a talisman, which was found 0 on her hand, .as also on identification of her saree. A key was found tagged in the saree. On enquiry made by PW- 22, in regard to the lock for which the key was used, it was stated that the lock was fitted to a trunk. The trunk was brought. The key was fitted in the lock of the trunk. It opened with the said key. PW-18, the Village E Administrative Officer, in the meantime took the appellant .to the Tahsildar, PW-19. Not only he confessed that he had murdered his wife and thrown the dead-body in the canal but also produced a 'thali chain' , M.0. 1 and ear rings, M.0.2 belonging to the deceased. Confessional F statement of the appellant was reduced into writing. G Sessions Court convicted appellant on the basis of ·circumstantial evidence. High Court upheld the convic:tion. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Indisputably, some delay took place in lodging the FIR. Till 11.3.1997, PW-1 or PW-2, were not l • sure about the death of the deceased. Only when an extra judicial confession was made by the appellant, an attempt H was made to lodge a FIR by PW-1. The contention that --+ PONNUSAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 305 the statement to the said effect, purported to have been A made, by PW-1 should not be relied upon as no officer from the police station had been examined to establish the said fact, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. PW1 is a rustic villager. She is an illiterate lady. According to her, she had been turned away from the B police station on the premise that no dead body was recovered or there being no other evidence relating to her death. No exception to such a statement can be taken. The courts cannot be oblivious of such conduct on the part of the police officers. Apathy on the part of the police c officers to accept complaints promptly is well known phenomena. [Paras 13, 14] [313-D, E, F, G] 2. Voluntary statement made by the appellant to PW- 2 on 10.3.1997 that the deceased had been missing was found by both the courts below to be untrue. They were D searching f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.