Dismissed

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Kumar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC18 Jul 2016CRL A/421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the sole accused convicted of murder and robbery. The Court held that the circumstances, including the recovery of stolen jewels via the accused's disclosure statement and matching fingerprints, unerringly pointed to his guilt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed.

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Kumar Vs State Rep. by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

That the Appellant herein/Sole Accused Viz., Ravikumar @ Ravi @ Kumar, S/o. Abrahim was directed to be released to bail as per order dated 29.07.2015 in M.P.No.1/15 in Crl.A.No.421/15 on the file of this Court.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Date: 18.07.2016

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶8

Crl.A.No.421 of 2015

¶9

Ravikumar @ Ravi @ Kumar ..Appellant/ Sole Accused

¶10

vs.

¶11

State,by The Inspector of Police, B-4, Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.258 of 2008 ..Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement, dated 16.02.2015, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.228 of 2010.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.T.Muruganandham for M/s.L.Srileka

¶14

For Respondent: Mr.M.Maharaja,Addl.P.P.

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)

¶17

The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.228 of 2010, on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, He stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 302 IPC. The Trial Court, after trial, by judgement dated 16.02.2015, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and convicted him for the offence under Section 380 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8

¶18

months. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal.

¶19

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

¶20

(i) The deceased, in this case, one Poongothai, is the wife of P.W.9. They were residing in Railway Colony, Basin Bridge, Chennai and having a son, P.W.8. The accused is known to the family of the deceased. P.W.9 was having some illicit intimacy with his brother's wife, Kuppulakshmi and on 03.09.2008, P.W.9, P.W.8 and the said Kuppulakshmi went to Velankanni. On 05.09.2008, the deceased went to her brother's house and left for her house and staying at her house alone. On 07.08.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased and found the door locked from outside and smelt a bad smell coming from inside the house. He opened the window and saw the deceased found dead. Immediately, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1.

¶21

(ii) P.W.25, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.258 of 2008 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. prepared FIR (Ex.P11) and sent the same to the court and higher officials.

¶22

(iii) P.W.26, Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of the FIR, commenced the investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence at about 9.00 p.m., prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and drew a Rough Sketch (Ex.P12). He conducted inquest over the dead body, in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared inquest report (Ex.P13). He recovered bloodstained broken mixer grinder, bloodstained pillow and one harmonium under a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of witnesses. He sent for finger print expert to lift chance finger print from the house. He also engaged the services of sniffer dogs. He sent the dead body to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, through P.W.24 Head Constable for postmortem and also alter the case into one under Section 302 IPC and prepared alteration report (Ex.P14). He examined some witnesses and recorded their statements.

¶23

(iv) P.W.17, Doctor, working in the Government General Hospital, Chennai, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries.

¶24

External Injuries:

¶25

(1) Laceration 9 x 2.5 cm bone deep seen on the left parietal region of head. (2) 5 x 0.5 cm bone deep seen in the left parietal region of head two cm below and parallel to the injury No.1 and 2 cm below injury No.2 a laceration of 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm seen was injury https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.3 injury No.4 3 x 1 cm bone deep seen in the

¶26

left occipital region and 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm laceration in the occipital region was injury No.8.

¶27

He opined that the accused appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the head injuries. He issued Post mortem Certificate, Ex.P8.

¶28

(v) On 10.09.2008, P.W.26 sent the material objects to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination and based on the investigation, on 15.09.2008, he arrested the accused and on such arrest, the accused voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement (Ex.P15), he recovered one Mangalsuthra, belonged to the deceased, from the house of the accused under Ex.P16 seizure mahazar and also recovered one ear stud, ring and some other ornaments owned by the deceased from P.W.14's pawn shop. P.W.26 arranged for a finger print expert to lift the finger print of the accused and sent the same for chemical examination. Thereafter, P.W.26 sent the accused for judicial custody. Then, he examined the Doctor who conducted postmortem and other witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, P.W.26 laid charge sheet.

¶29

Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 26 witnesses were examined and 17 documents exhibited and 5 material objects were marked.

¶30

Out of the above said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. According to him, on 05.09.2008 the deceased came to his house and informed him that her husband P.W.9 and son P.W.8 and Kuppulakshmi had gone to Velankanni and she was alone in the house and hence P.W.1 asked her to stay in his house, but she told that she wanted to feed her dog and saying so left for her house. He has further stated that thereafter as she did not return, on 07.09.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., he went to the house of the deceased and since the door was locked from out side, he opened the window, he smelt as a bad smell coming out from the house and saw the deceased found dead inside the house and immediately broke open the door and thereafter he went to the police station and gave a complaint. P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. She has spoken about the death of the deceased. P.W.3 is the witness who witnessed the mahazar and also recovery of material objects from the house of the deceased. P.W.4 is a witness to the observation mahazar and recovery of material objects. P.W.5 is the brother's son of the deceased. P.W.6 is a neighbour of the deceased. According to him, on 05.09.2008, the deceased came to his house and on 07.09.2008, he smelt a bad smell coming out from the house of the deceased and when he peeped through the window, he found the deceased https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dead and immediately he informed the same to others. P.W.7 is

¶31

also a neighbour. He has identified M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.8 is the son of the deceased. According to him, on 03.09.2008, he, along with his father and one Kuppulakshmi, went to Velankanni and on 07.09.2008 his father received a phone call that a bad smell emanating from his house. He had further deposed that he filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, seeking return of the jewels and photographs of the jewels and the same were marked as M.O.5. P.W.8 has also identified the jewels worn by his mother. P.W.9 is the husband of the deceased. According to him, on 03.09.2008, he, along with his son and one Kuppulakshmy, went to Velankanni and on 07.09.2009, he received a phone call from his neighbour that a bad smell was coming from his house and received a message from his brother-in-law that his wife was found dead. He has further deposed that he filed an application seeking return of jewels worn by the deceased and he also identified the jewels. P.W.10 is a witness who witnessed the arrest of the accused and also recovery of jewels from P.W.14 Pawn broker. P.W.11 is also a witness to the arrest of the accused and also recovery of jewels from P.W.14 pawn broker. P.W.12 is a person related to the accused who introduced the accused to P.W.14 pawn broker. P.W.13 has turned hostile. P.W.14 is a pawn broker, having shop at Vannarapettai. According to him, on 04.09.2008, the accused pledged the jewels worn by the deceased and the accused received a sum of Rs.6,300/- from him and the whole jewels were recovered based on the disclosure statement of the accused. P.W.15, Scientific Officer has stated that he examined the finger prints and gave a report (Ex.P6). P.W.16, Assistant Director, working in the Forensic Department has stated that he examined the bloodstained material objects and gave a report (Ex.P7). P.W.17, Doctor, working in the Government General Hospital, Chennai has deposed that he conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave a Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8). P.W.18, photographer has stated that he took photographs of the chance fingerprints in the deceased house. P.W.19, Finger print expert has stated that he examined both the chance finger print lifted from the house of the deceased and the finger prints of the accused and on a comparison found both the fingerprints tallying with each other and he gave a report (Ex.P9). P.W.20, Head Constable, working in the respondent police station has stated that he witnessed taking of chance fingerprints in the scene of occurrence. P.W.21, Sub Inspector of Police has stated that working in the respondent police station has stated that at the request of the Inspector of Police, he handed over the internal organs of the deceased to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination. P.W.22, Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station had deposed that he handed over the material objects to the Forensic Department for chemical examination. P.W.23, Head Constable working in the respondent police station has stated that he accompanied the dead body to the Hospital and identified the same for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ postmortem. P.W.24, Head Constable, working in the respondent

¶32

police station has stated that he took photograph of the finger print of the accused and sent the same to the Forensic Laboratory and he has given a memo (Ex.P10). P.W.25, Sub Inspector of Police working in the respondent police has stated that on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, registered a case and sent the first information report to the Court and higher officials. P.W.26, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police has deposed that he conducted investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, arrested the accused and recovered materials objects and sent the same to the Forensic Lab and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

¶33

When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. The accused examined his wife and mother as D.Ws.1 and 2 , however no document was marked on his side.

¶34

Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in the first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.

¶35

We have heard Mr.T.Muruganandham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there was no evidence available to implicate the appellant in this case. He further submitted that the motive for the crime has not been properly explained by the prosecution and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased and hence their evidence cannot be believed. He further contended that there was a material contradiction in the recovery of jewels owned by the deceased and fingerprints were also not taken, as per law. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and hence he prays for allowing this appeal.

¶37

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that it is true it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, however from the evidence of P.W.s.8 and 9, it is clearly stated that the accused is known to the deceased family and only based on the disclosure statement of the accused, the jewels worn by the deceased were recovered by the respondent police and there was no explanation on the side of the accused for possession of the above jewels. Apart from that according to the learned Additional Public prosecutor, the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence tallied with the accused fingerprints and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hence the prosecution has clearly established the case beyond

¶38

any reasonable doubt and hence he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

¶39

We have considered the rival submissions.

¶40

It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. At the time of occurrence, the deceased was alone in her house. P.Ws.8 and 9, the husband and son of the deceased, had been on a tour to Velankanni and according to their evidence, the accused is known to them and he used to come to their house. On 05.09.2008, the deceased was seen alone in the house, by P.W.6 and 7. Subsequently, on 07.09.2008, after noticing some foul smell coming from the house of the deceased, they have gone there and saw the deceased dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 has come to the house of the deceased and given the complaint. During the investigation, chance fingerprints available in the house of the deceased were taken, as per law and then based on the information collected during the investigation, the accused has been arrested on 15.02.2009 and on such arrest, he has voluntarily given a confession and based on the disclosure statement, P.W.26, the investigation officer has recovered Mangalsuthra worn by the deceased from the relatives house of the deceased. Other jewels, namely, ear stud, ring and ornaments worn by the deceased were pledged by the accused in the Pawn Shop owned by P.W.14 and based on the disclosure statement, the same were seized. According to P.W.14, he knew the accused through P.W.12, a close relative of the accused and on 06.09.2008, the accused pledged the jewels in his shop and received a sum of Rs.6,300/- and the above jewels were identified by P.Ws.8 and 9, the husband and son of the deceased, as that of the deceased and they have also received the above stolen articles from the Court. From the above evidence, it is clear that soon after the occurrence, the accused was in possession of the jewels belonged and worn by the deceased and he had pledged them in a pawn broker shop and they were recovered based on the disclosure statement of the accused. Hence, under Section 114-a of the Evidence Act, it is to be presumed that it is this accused who has stolen the above jewels from the deceased and committed murder of her. Even though it is a rebuttable presumption, there was no explanation from the accused for possession of the jewels belonged to the deceased. Apart from that the finger prints lifted from the scene of occurrence tallied with that of the accused.

¶41

Even though a feeble attempt was made by the accused, by examining his wife and mother, to show that he was at Vijayawada in Andhrapradesh at the time of occurrence and he was arrested only on 15.02.2009. In order to prove the same, no material was produced to show that both the accused and D.W.1 were working at Vijayawada in Andhrapradesh. Hence, the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 cannot believed. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution has clearly established the circumstances,

¶42

unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Hence, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.228 of 2010, dated 16.02.2015, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai stands confirmed. If the appellant/accused is not in custody, bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled and the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure him and commit him to prison, so as to serve the sentence imposed on him.

¶44

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rrg
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. -do- The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
3. The Xth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai.
4. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
6. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate George, Town, Chennai.
7. The Inspector of Police, B-4,
Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.
8.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
9. The District Collector, Chennai.
10. The Director General Police, Mylapore, Chennai.
Crl.A.No.421 of 2015
RJ(CO)
EU 20.2.17

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Kumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Kumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Silambarasi Vs State Rep by

Paulraj Vs State Rep. by

Srinivasan, Vs State by

Meenakshidevi Vs State through