(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2018 made in S.C.No.254 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Chennai.)
M. Jothiraman, J.
1. The sole accused in Crime No.547 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2018 in SC.No.254 of 2012 passed by the learned Mahila Court, Chennai, in and by which trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as under:
| Charges framed under Section | Conviction under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment |
| 302 IPC | 302 IPC | Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. |
| 294(b) IPC | 294(b) IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months |
| 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act | 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. |
2.1. PW1 is the mother of the deceased – Sangeetha. PW2 is the sister of the deceased. PW3 is the father of the deceased. PW1-Padma deposed that she has two daughters and the deceased was her elder daughter. The deceased was studying B.Sc., first year in Quaid-E-Millath College, Chennai. The deceased used to go to college at 7.00 a.m. and return by 2.00 p.m. Thereafter, she goes for a part time job at Born Baby Store, which is near her house and she would return home daily by 9.30 p.m.
2.2. The accused was residing in the upstairs of the building and was working in a nearby Biriyani shop. Whenever the deceased goes to upstairs to dry clothes, the accused used to talk to her. He told her that he was in love with her and wanted to marry her. The deceased told PW1, her mother and she also told that the accused was threatening her sometimes. PW1 also warned the accused. Even thereafter, the deceased told that the accused continued to follow her by calling her through cellphone. Again PW1 warned the accused.
2.3. On 17.02.2012, when the deceased went to college and returned by 2.00 p.m., she went to her part time job. PW1 and her husband /PW3 and PW2 / younger sister of the deceased were talking by standing at the tailoring shop of PW3 and they expecting the arrival of deceased from the shop. When the deceased was returning from the shop and coming near her house, the accused appeared all of a sudden, pulled her hair, abused her in filthy language and stabbed her with knife – M.O.1 over her left chest and also on her neck. While doing so, the accused told that she should die as she was not available for him. PW1 and others rushed to rescue the deceased from the hands of the accused, but the accused threatened them that he would stab them also and then he ran away immediately from the place of occurrence.
2.4. PW1, PW3 and one Panneerselvam took the deceased to a nearby private hospital, namely BRS hospital and after 45 minutes, hospital authorities told that the deceased died due to succumbed to injuries. Immediately, they went to the police station and lodged a complaint- Ex.P1.
2.5. PW13- Dr.Gunanithi who examined the victim at BRS Hospital, Nungambakkam, deposed that on 17.02.2012 at about 9.45 p.m., the victim was brought to the hospital. PW13 found that the deceased was gasping and was dying. As the deceased was not in a position to talk, the doctor enquired the mother of the victim / PW1 and came to know from her that the deceased was stabbed by a known person. Life saving measures were taken by the doctor, but the deceased died due to injuries. PW13 issued Accident Register – Ex.P8 and Death Report- Ex.P9.
2.6. PW17, then Inspector of Police deposed that based on the complaint lodged by PW1 on 17.02.2012, he registered a case in Crime No.547/2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC under F.I.R – Ex.P16. He took up the investigation and went to BRS hospital where the deceased was admitted and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchatdars and prepared Inquest Report – Ex.P18. He made arrangements to take photographs of the deceased. PW10- Kandan / Photographer took photographs of the deceased in the mortuary of BRS hospital and the photographs were M.O.4 series.
2.7. PW17 sent the body for Autopsy to the Royapettah Government Hospital. He continued with the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence on 17.02.2012 at about 1.00 a.m. in the night hours and prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P19 in the presence of PW11 and PW3. At that time, PW10 / Photographer took photographs of the scene of occurrence under M.O.5 series. He has also recovered M.O.7 – Left side Chappel and M.O.9- Cement Concrete under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P5. He enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. In continuation of investigation, on the same day at 4.00 a.m., he arrested the accused near Valluvar Kottam Bus Stop.
2.8. The accused voluntarily gave confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of PW9 and one Sasikumar. In pursuant to his confession statement, PW17 took the accused to Valluvar Kottam Corporation Park, where the accused identified M.O.1 – Knife and handed over the same to PW17 and the same has been seized under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P3. The admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused is Ex.P20. PW17 recovered M.O.2 – Pant, and M.O.3 – Shirt with blood stains under Seizure Mahazar. He sent the accused to judicial custody. He also gave a requisition for conducting postmortem.
2.9. PW2 – younger sister of the deceased and PW3 – father of the deceased have corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW4- Panneerselvam, who is a known person for PW3, also corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW5- Sathya, who is the neighbour of PW1 deposed that she knows PW1 and the accused and on the date of occurrence at about 9.45 p.m., while she was cooking, she heard a noise from outside. When she rushed out of the home, she found that PW1 was shouting. When she enquired, PW1 told her that the accused stabbed the deceased.
2.10. PW6 –Mercy and PW7-Maheswari, who are also the neighbours of PW1 also reiterated the same version of PW5.
2.11. PW8- Ganesh, who is the house owner of the accused, deposed that the accused and his friend were staying in his house in a room. On 17.02.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., one of the tenants called him and told that a murder had occurred at his house, wherein the accused killed PW3’s daughter by stabbing her.
2.12. PW9- Babu is the colleague of the deceased at Born Baby Store. He deposed that on 17.02.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., just 5 minutes before they closed their chop, the deceased left to her home. While he was going near the deceased’s house, he found people gathered in front of her house. He came to know that the deceased was stabbed by the accused and she was taken to the hospital. PW9 and his shop owner Sasikumar went to the police station and they were enquired by the police. Police took them at 4.00 a.m. to a place near Valluvar Kottam Bus Stand, where the accused was standing. PW9 identified the accused and thereafter police arrested the accused and got his confession statement. PW9 stood as a witness to the confession statement marked as Ex.P2. In pursuance of his confession statement, PW17 recovered M.Os.1 to 3 under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P3.
2.13. PW11- Elumalai, who was known to PW1 and her husband, deposed that on 17.02.2012 at about 9.45 p.m., police visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P19. He stood as a witness for the Observation Mahazar and the police also seized / collected M.O.7 and M.O.8 under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P5.
2.14. PW12- Tr.Kumar, Junior Engineer of Chennai Corporation deposed that on 17.02.2012 street lights on the road side including those ones on the place of occurrence have been glowing from 6.00 p.m. on 17.02.2012 to 6.00 a.m. of the next day. The requisition of the police and the reply given by PW12 were marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 respectively.
2.15. PW14- Dr.Sathyamurthi, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, has opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to loss of blood due to the injury on her left side cheek and shock. He issued the Postmortem Certificate – Ex.P10. The viscera of the deceased was sent to the Forensic Science Department and no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased. PW14 opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could have caused by a sharp weapon.
2.16. PW15-Sridharan, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Department deposed that on chemical analysis, he found no poison in any of the items and issued Ex.P11 report to that effect. PW16 – Tmt.Vimali Thiagarajan, Assistant Director, Genetics Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai has deposed that she received 10 items for chemical analysis and on examination found that human blood is seen in all those items and the blood found in Item Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 are “ A” Group and she received reports to that effect in Exs.P12 and P13.
2.17. PW17, in continuation of his investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing the investigation, he has laid the charge sheet against the accused.
2.18. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW17 were examined. Exs.P1 to P22 were marked and also produced M.Os.1 to 13. Upon completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the incriminating portion of the evidence was found in the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) CrPC, for which the accused stated that the evidence was false and a false case was foisted against him. The defence side has not examined any witness and no document was marked.
2.19. Upon appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty for the charges under Sections 302, 294(b), 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The appellant / accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and the fine amount imposed is ordered to be treated as compensation payable under Section 357 CrPC to PW1, mother of the deceased. The learned Trial Judge also recommended to the District Legal Services Authority to fix appropriate compensation to the complainant from the victim compensation scheme available under Section 357A CrPC. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has filed this instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused would submit that PW1/mother of the deceased in her deposition stated that on the date of occurrence herself, PW2 and PW3 were standing and speaking in front of the tailor shop and at that time, the appellant / accused suddenly came and caught hold of the deceased by saying that she should not live and the appellant took knife, stabbed the deceased and escaped from that place. PW1 admits that the appellant / accused came from the road side and did not come from his tenement. The distance between her house and the shop is about 20 ft., moreover the distance between PW4 and Thaneer Pandhal also is about 20 ft. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs.1 to 4. The version of the eye witnesses is highly unnatural, contradictory in nature, improbable and contains material discrepancies, more particularly in the testimonies of PWs.3 and 4. The contradictions between the evidence of the eye witnesses are trivial but vital. PW17 / Investigating Officer, in his chief examination admitted that M.O.1 – weapon used by the appellant / accused was not sent for forensic examination for verifying the finger prints of the accused in the knife. The Trial Court ought to have considered that the motive is not proved by the prosecution. The medical evidences showed that PW13 stated about only one stab injury, whereas PW14 states that there are two stab injuries. Moreover Accident Register also speaks about only one stab injury. PW17 have ignored the same and did not investigate as to how the further stab injuries were caused.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that PWs.1 to PW4 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and their evidence categorically proved the manner of commission of offence committed by the accused and after the occurrence, immediately they took the injured to the hospital and lodged a complaint without any delay. The medical evidence of PW13 and PW14 fully corroborated to the evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 4 and there is no material contradiction between their evidences. The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly found the appellant / accused guilty and convicted him and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following judgments:
(1) Baban Shankar Daphal and Others v. State of Maharashtra [2025 SCC Online SC 137]
(2) Edakkandi Dineshan alias P.Dineshan and Others v. State of Kerala [(2025) 3 SCC 273].
5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. According to the prosecution, the accused was residing at the upstairs of the house where the deceased was living and he was working in a nearby Biriyani shop. The accused was friendly with the deceased’s family and was having one side love with the deceased and 2 years prior to the occurrence, he proposed his love to the deceased. The deceased parents warned the accused and also their daughter by telling that she should not talk to him, but the accused disturbed the deceased by calling her through phone. He met her in person and also compelled her to marry him. The deceased rejected the same and so the accused went to frustration and also thought that she should not marry anyone else and she should be killed. On 17.02.2012 at 9.30 p.m., when the deceased was returning home after finishing her part time job, the accused followed her with a knife, stopped her at the sewing shop corridor, held her hair, abused her in filthy language and told that she should not live, if she is not available for him. Then the accused stabbed over her left chest, back of her left side neck with knife. The accused also threatened the people who have gathered near. The deceased succumbed to injuries and died.
7. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has relied upon the following circumstances:
i. Eye Witnesses of PWs.1 to 4
ii. Motive
iii. Medical Evidence
iv. Arrest and Recovery
MOTIVE
8. PW1 - mother of the deceased deposed that her husband PW3 was running a tailoring shop. The deceased is the elder daughter of PW1. PW2 is younger daughter of PW1 and studying in a school. The deceased was studying college and she used to start to college daily at 7.00 a.m. and return home by 2.00 p.m. Thereafter, she used to go for part time job at Born Baby Store, which is near to her house and she would return home at 9.30 p.m., daily. The accused was residing in the upstairs of the building where the deceased was residing and he is working in a nearby Biriyani shop. Whenever the deceased goes to upstairs for drying clothes, the accused used to talk to her. He expressed her love and wanted to marry her. The deceased told the same to PW1 and she has also told that the accused was threatening for sometime. PW1 told her not to be afraid of him and stop talking to him. Before 2 years prior to the occurrence, the accused proposed love to the deceased, which was refused by the deceased. The deceased also revealed the same to PW1 and PW3. PW1 and PW3 warned the accused and also the deceased stating that she should not talk to him. Even thereafter, the deceased told that the accused continued to follow her and calling her through cell phone and thereatening him. Again PW1 called and warned the accused.
9. The evidence of PW1 shows that the accused was moving friendly with the family of PW1 and he was having one side love with the deceased and the accused also gave love proposal to the deceased and she revealed the same to her parents and her parents warned the deceased and also informed the deceased that she should not talk to him. But the accused disturbed the deceased by called her through mobile phone. The deceased rejected his offer and so he went hostile and due to frustration, he decided that the deceased should not marry anyone else and she should be killed. From the above evidence of PW1, the prosecution has clearly established the motive for the occurrence.
EYE-WITNESSES
10. PW1 deposed that on 07.02.2012, when the deceased went to college and returned back by 2.00 p.m., after taking lunch, she went to her part time job. PWs.1, 3 and 2 were talking by standing at the tailoring shop of PW3, which is located on the veranda and they were also expecting the arrival of the deceased from the shop. When the deceased was returning from the shop and coming near her house, the accused appeared all of a sudden, pulled her hair, abused her in filthy language and stabbed her with a knife over the left chest and also on her neck. While stabbing, the accused told that she should die as she was not available for him. Others rushed to the spot, but the accused threatened them with dire consequences and then he ran away from that place.
11. PWs.1, 3 and 4 took the deceased to a nearby private hospital namely BRS hospital and after 45 minutes, the hospital authorities told that the deceased died due to succumbing injuries. Immediately, they went to the police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 before PW17- Inspector of Police.
12. PW13 – Dr.Gunanithi, who examined the deceased has issued the Accident Register – Ex.P8 mentioning that the deceased had sustained only one injury on her left chest, whereas PW14 – Dr.Sathyamurthi, attached to Royapettah Government Hospital, who conducted postmortem, has stated that on examination of the body of the deceased, he found two stab injuries viz., (i) 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left side of chest, situated 8 cm away from midline of chest 4.5 cm below the left nipple and 1 x 0.5 cm deep on the left ventricle. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 were cogent and convincing on the material particulars of the occurrence. During cross examination, the defence has not elicited anything about the enmity against the accused and they cannot have any reason to implicate the accused falsely.
13. PW4 is the neighbour of both the accused and the deceased. He deposed in his evidence that he witnessed the occurrence. He stated that while he was talking and standing with PWs.1 to 3, the deceased was returning from the shop and at that time, the accused came down from the steps, held her and stabbed her neck and when she was about to escape, he again stabbed her. PW4 does not have any enmity against the accused and he is an independent witness and therefore, the evidence of PW4 on the material part of occurrence corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.
14. It is the contention of the appellant that PW4’s evidence reveals that PW3 was not present in the place of occurrence, but he was staying inside the house, whereas PW3-father of the deceased stated that he was also present in the verandah and talking with PW1 and PW2 and expecting the arrival of the deceased from her shop and on seeing the occurrence, he rushed to the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the Born Baby Store where the deceased was working was near to the house of the deceased, within short radius of distance and hence, it is not possible for PW4 to talk with PW1 and PW3.
15. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the occurrence took place at the Verandah near the house of the deceased at the Tailoring shop of PW3 and as per Ex.P4 – Observation Mahazar and Ex.P19- Rough Sketch, the scene of occurrence is the verandah of PW1’s house.
RECOVERY OF M.Os.1 to 3
16. PW17, Inspector of Police, deposed that PW1 has lodged a complaint on 17.02.2012. He registered a case in Crime No.547/2012 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC and prepared the F.I.R. – Ex.P16. In continuation of his investigation, he recovered the dress of the deceased, which she wore at the time of occurrence viz., Chudithar Top- M.O.1, Bra – M.O.10 under Form 95 – Ex.P17. Thereafter, he went to BRS Hospital, where the deceased was admitted and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report – Ex.P18. He made arrangements to take photographs of the deceased in the Mortuary and the photographs- M.O.4 series were taken. He sent the body of the deceased for autopsy to the Royapettah Government Hospital and he visited the place of occurrence.
17. PW5 has stated in the evidence that at the time of occurrence, when she was cooking insider her house, she heard a noise from outside and she rushed out of the home and found that PW1 was shouting and on enquiry, PW1 told that accused stabbed the deceased. After the occurrence, immediately PWs.1 to 4 took the deceased to the hospital for treatment.
18. PW9- Colleague of the deceased deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5 minutes before they closed their shop, the deceased left the shop and went to her home. While he was crossing near the deceased house, he found people gathered in front of her house and on enquiry, he came to know that the deceased was stabbed by someone and she was taken to the hospital.
19. PW16- Scientific Analyst Officer deposed that she found the blood group of the deceased as “A” Group and further that she received 10 items viz., Chudithar Top, Bra, Left side Chappal, Cement Concrete, Knife with blood stains, Black Colour Pant, Black Colour Chudithar Pant, Shirt, Apron, Jatti) for analysis and on examination, she found that human blood is seen in all those items and the blood found in Item Nos.1,2, 4 to 7 and 9 was “A” Group. In this regard, he has also issued reports under Exs.P12 and P13.
20. As per the evidence of PW9, in pursuance to the confession statement of the accused, PW17 recovered M.Os.1 to 3, wherein M.O.1 knife was stained with blood stains of “A” group blood. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the nexus between M.O.1 weapon with the commission of crime. Hence, the prosecution has established the recovery of material objects M.Os.1 to 3.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
21. Though PW13 – Dr.Gunanithi, who examined the deceased at BRS Hospital noted one injury on the body of the deceased, whereas PW14- Dr.Sathyamurthi, attached to Royapettah Government Hospital, who conducted postmortem found two injuries, which is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as to the nature of injuries and assault with the Postmortem Certificate – Exs.P14. The accused assaulted and stabbed the deceased with an intention that such bodily injury would likely to cause death. It is to be noted that culpable homicide is murder, if the act committed has been done with the intention to cause death. The act of the accused has been done with an intention to cause death and therefore, the accused has committed the offence of culpable homicide and the act of the accused does not fall under the exception to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
22. The prosecution has established the circumstances clearly pointing out the guilt of the accused through Motive, Evidence of Eye Witnesses, Recovery and Medical Evidence. The Trial Court, on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and convicted and sentenced him as above. This Court finds no reason to warrant interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and finds no merit in this appeal and therefore, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
23. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 20.09.2018 in S.C.No.254 of 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The trial Court and the respondent/police shall secure the presence of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.