V.S. Sirpurkar, J.@mdashThe appellant questions her conviction for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C. recorded by the Sessions Judge, Madurai. It was alleged that she had committed the murder of one Palanisamy on 21.9.1996 at 1.00 p.m. in the fields of Ravindran at Kutladampatti, Madurai District.
2. The prosecution case was that on 23.9.1996, P.W.5, Govindammal found a floating body in the well and she went to the landlord of that field, P.W.4 Ravindran and told him. Both of them then are said to have gone to P.W.1, who is the Village Administrative Officer and thereafter lodged a report to Vadipatti Police Station on the same day. In the report, it was suspected that this murder was committed by one Chinnakkalai @ Valayapatti Nallu, who was the watch guard of the adjacent ''thottam'' belonging one Venkitasamy Reddiar. It was suspected that the accused had developed illicit intimacy with the said Chinnakkalai. It was revealed that the body belonged to one Palanisamy and this Palanisamy also was not the husband of the accused, but she was living with him for about four years in the ''thottam'' (grove) belonging to P.W.4, Ravindran. The prosecution alleged that she was not married to Palanisamy and was in fact married to one Velu, whom she had forsaken in favour of the deceased. The prosecution alleges that after the report was given, which was recorded by the Sub Inspector, the investigation began.
3. During the investigation, it turned out that the accused had run away previously with one Nallu alias Chinnakkalai, on account of which an enquiry was made in Sanarpatti Police Station and a panchayat was held between the accused and the deceased Palanisamy in the Police Station itself. It also turned out there used to be frequent quarrels between them as the accused had a crush on Nallu @ Chinnakkalai previously. It had also come that P.W.4, Ravindran had advised Palanisamy and the accused for leading a peaceful life. It is because of that, that the suspicion was expressed against Nallu @ Chinnakkalai in the first information report. During the investigation, which began immediately, the inquest was prepared on 23.9.1996. The accused came to be arrested only on 25.9.1996 in the bus stand along with her child. After her arrest, she is said to have given a discovery statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, agreeing to discover the aruval with which she had allegedly committed the murder. It was found during the post-mortem examination that the body of the deceased had, in all three injuries. They are:-
1.Transverse incised wound about 20 cm X 3 cm X bone deep over over extending in front 5 cm. away from the midline of chin just below to lower border of mandible, extend backward up to back of neck right side of neck cutting through all the intervening structure muscle - and vessels - and carotid.
2.Transverse incised wound 15 cm. X 2 X bone deep over right side of middle neck extending upto back of neck - left to midline of back of neck.
3.Transverse incised wound 1 cm. above the injury No.1 extend from back of right ear upto back of neck 5 cm. away from midline of neck about 15 X 2 X bone deep. Incised wound 4 X 1 X bone deep over right occipital region. Incised wound 4 X 1 X bone deep over right parietal region. Incised oblique wound 4 X 1 X bone deep over right parietal region away from midline summit of scalp.
4. The investigating officer also recovered a blood stained saree from the possession of the accused, in pursuance of the confession statement given by the accused. However, when the two material objects were sent for chemical examination, it revealed that there was no blood on the aruval and the blood stains on the saree were totally disintegrated and were not fit for chemical examination. On the basis of this evidence, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai, who committed the accused to Sessions. In the Sessions Court, the defence of the accused was that of denial. As many as 13 witnesses came to be examined against the accused, including the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.4-Ravindran, P.W.5-Govindammal and P.W.6-Mayalagu. The main reliance was on the evidence of P.W.6-Mayalagu, who claimed that he met the accused in the bus stand with her child, where she had admitted that she had committed the murder of Palanisamy. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of P.W.6 and accepted that the accused had made a extra judicial confession to him on the next day of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge also accepted the evidence of motive, as was revealed from the evidence of P.W.4-Ravindran and P.W.5-Govindammal, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty. It is against this judgment that the present appeal is filed.
5.The learned counsel firstly pointed out that this was a case of no evidence. Learned counsel systematically pointed out that insofar as the evidence of recovery was concerned, there was nothing to connect the M.O.1-aruval with the crime. He pointed out that even if it is accepted that the accused had discovered the place, where the aruval was kept and in pursuance of the information, the aruval was recovered, if the aruval was not connected with the murder, there would be no use of this discovery. Learned counsel urged that there was nothing to prove that the said aruval was actually a murder weapon. The possession of aruval by the accused would not be very surprising since the accused was herself an agricultural labourer and it is a common knowledge that the aruval is used for agricultural operations also. Again, it is specifically reported that the said aruval did not have any blood stains. There is no witness, who has seen the accused along with the aruval or the aruval being used by her. Therefore, the recovery is of no consequence. Same thing can be said about the saree. According to the learned counsel, firstly it was not established that the saree was blood stained at all because, the serologist''s report shows that the blood stains were so disintegrated that it could not be said as to whether the saree was stained with human blood. We are not at all impressed because even if the human blood was there, the prosecution, in that case, has not established firstly that the accused had no injuries on her person and secondly that the blood stain was of the blood group, which was that of the accused. A possibility of the blood being because of menstruation cannot also be ruled out altogether. Therefore, insofar as the question of recovery is concerned, there is nothing and, in our opinion, the learned counsel is right in asking us to discard that evidence. Learned counsel points out that the treatment given to this evidence is absolutely slipshod and casual. Unfortunately, we have to agree with the learned counsel on that aspect. We do not see any serious discussion in respect of the evidence of discovery excepting that the learned Sessions Judge has simply accepted the evidence.
6. Then the learned counsel turned to the evidence of P.W.6, who claimed that he met the accused at about 7.00 p.m. at Sanarpatti bus stand, where he was waiting with his friend Pandi. He claims that both of them saw the accused with the child. According to P.W.6, on seeing him the accused voluntarily informed that since Palanisamy tortured her, she committed the murder of Palanisamy around 1.00 p.m., when Palanisamy was asleep in the coconut thope house. She is also said to have informed the witnesses that after committing the murder, she pushed the dead body of Palanisamy in the well, which is very adjacent to the house. The accused is also said to have informed that she had developed illicit intimacy with Nallu @ Chinnakkalai, who was the watch man of the adjacent land and it was because of that she was subjected to torture by the deceased Palanisamy. We have seen the evidence of P.W.6. In our opinion, this evidence was liable to be rejected on the face of it for the following reasons:-
1. That the accused had no reason to make any confession to this witness, P.W.6-Mayalagu because there is no special relationship of the accused with this witness.
2. That this witness, after coming to know of the said murder, kept quiet and did not inform anybody including the police, or any other person, who could have had some connection with the accused or the deceased.
3. The witness does not specifically state the date on which the confession was made.
7. It must be remembered that the extra judicial confession would have very little evidentiary value and it was rightly argued by the learned counsel that it is not known as to how the name of this person became known to the police and that how that his statement came to be recorded by the police. It seems that his statement was recorded on 23.9.1996 at the time of inquest. It is not known why this witness went for the inquest and how is it that he was called for the inquest. This witness has not given any explanation in that behalf. The learned Sessions Judge has treated the evidence of this witness in a extremely casual manner. After all, the meeting of this witness with the accused was also an absolutely chance meeting. That apart, the only other witness, who was a witness to such confession having been made, Pandi, has not been examined by the police at all. All these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, were clinching enough to reject the evidence of the extra judicial confession. We agree with the learned counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, tried to say that this witness became available even at the time of the recording of the inquest and that is where he has given the information to the police. We fail to follow as to what was this witness doing from the day when he came to know about the murder and why did he wait till his statement was recorded only at the time of holding the inquest i.e., on 23.9.1996. If these two circumstances are ignored, then there would be literally nothing against the accused.
8. It was tried to be suggested by the Public Prosecutor that this lady was of loose character, she was married to one Velu, but she left him in favour of Palanisamy and then she had also developed illicit intimacy with one Nallu @ Chinnakkalai. We are not prepared to accept even that, for the simple reason that Nallu has not been examined before the Court as a witness. We are not prepared to go on the gossip like statement by P.W.4-Ravindran and P.W.5-Govindammal.
9. In short, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has gravely erred in convicting the accused, without there being any legally proved evidence against her. The appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of all the offences and she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless she is required in connection with any other crime.
