Life sentence (Cr.R.P 106) IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003. Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L., Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Tuesday, the 10th day of May, 2022
Complainant The Inspector of Police, P5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 39.
(Crime No.758/2020)
Name of the Accused Charles Rajkumar, M/A. 31/2020, S/o. Samson Ashok Kumar
Offence charges Under Section 498A, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under Sections 498A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ rpj;jpiu jp’;fs; 27Mk; ehs; brt;tha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 118/2020
(CNR NO. TNCH01-015672-2020)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.58/2020 in (Crime No.758/2020-MKB Nagar Police Station) on the file of the Learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences against the accused under Section 498A,
302 and 506(ii) IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Sentence Section 498 below;
(i) The accused is accordingly convicted under
A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced as
to undergo THREE YEARS
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month;
(ii) to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- under Section 302 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 3 months; and
(iii) to undergo SEVEN YEARS
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 506(ii) IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month;
(iv) the sentences imposed shall run concurrently;
(v) the period already undergone by the accused from 22.07.2020 to till date shall be set-off under Section 428 IPC;

(vi) Total fine Rs.20,000/-.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The case properties P.M.O.1-Blood stained Aruval with wooden handle-1, P.M.O.2-Blood stained white colour shirt-1, P.M.O.3-Blood stained block colour pant, P.M.O.4-Green colour inskirt-1, P.M.O.5-Block colour blouse-1, P.M.O.6- Blood stained saree-1, P.M.O.7-White colour brassier-1, P.M.O.8-Blood stained towel-1, P.M.O.9-Blood stained tiles, P.M.O.10-Sample tiles and P.M.O.11Red colour polythene bag named with Nalli are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or
357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of Rs.20,000/- paid by the accused it is ordered to pay Rs.7500/- each to
P.W.2-Tr.Subramani (father of the deceased) and P.W.4-Tmt. Pavun (mother of the deceased) as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Total compensation Rs.15,000/-. The compensation
amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under Section
357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.2-Tr.Subramani (father of deceased) and P.W.4-Tmt.Pavun (mother of the deceased), after due enquiry, out of the Victim

Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.

Description of the accused
Seri al
No. Name Father’s Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Charles Rajkumar Samson Ashok Kumar Christian Security No.38/51, 17th West
Cross Street, M.K.B Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39. 31/2020
Date
of Occurrence 21.07.2020
Complaint-Final Report 02.09.2020
Apprehension or appearance 22.07.2020
Released on bail Accused in Judicial Custody
Commitment 21.09.2020
Commencement of Trial 01.10.2021
Close of trial 12.04.2022
Sentence or Order 10.05.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 10.05.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L.,
Special Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Accused Mr.B.Thirunavukkarasu
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.  
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR
NEETHIMANDRAM
ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Tuesday, the 10th day of May, 2022
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ rpj;jpiu jp’;fs; 27Mk; ehs; brt;tha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 118/2020
(CNR NO. TNCH01-015672-2020)

The Inspector of Police,
P5, MKB Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 39
(Crime No.758/2020) … Complainant
– Vs. –
Charles Rajkumar, M/A. 31/2020,
S/o. Samson Ashok Kumar,
No.38/51, 17th West Cross Street,
M.K.B. Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39. … Accused
This Sessions case is taken on file on 05.10.2020 and came up on
12.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,
B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Mr.B.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate for the Accused (Nominated as Legal Aid through District Legal Services Authority, Chennai) and upon hearing the
….2.

arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Inspector of Police, MKB Nagar Police Station, has laid a
Final Report in Cr. No.758/2020, before the committal Court of the Learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 21.7.2020 at about
5.30 p.m. at the residence of the accused situated at 17th West Cross Street,
M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC.
2. It is alleged that the accused was married to the deceased Tmt.Ramani in the year April 2019. The accused used to treat the deceased with cruelty and harassed by suspecting her fidelity. Due to which 3 months prior to the occurrence the deceased went to her parents house and was staying there. At the time the accused used to visit the deceased and quarrelled with one Salamon Charles, residing opposite to the house of her parents, for talking with the deceased. Further the accused used to talk with the deceased over cellphone and used take her out while she was staying in her parents home. Similarly on the date of occurrence on 21.07.2020 the accused took the deceased to his house
….3.
situated at M.K.B. Nagar. Coming to know about the same the witness Tr. Murali and Tr. Subramani, brother and father of the deceased respectively, went to the house of the accused in search of the deceased. When they pushed and opened the door they saw the accused cutting the deceased indiscriminately with a sickle (Arival) on her neck and body and caused multiple injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. As a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Further the accused made escape from the place of occurrence after criminally intimidating the the said witnesses with death. Hence the above final report for alleged offences under Sections 498A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.
3. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the offence by the Committal Court and on producing the accused from judicial custody, the copies of all the documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence under Section 302 IPC alleged to be committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, vide Order dated 21.09.2020 in P.R.C. No.58/2020, has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai, and committed the accused in custody to be produced before the
Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned
….4.
Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
4. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges: Upon the
accused being produced before this Court and in the presence of the learned Advocate for the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offence which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the accused under Section 498A, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
5. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 21 witnesses cited, 18 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and Exs-P.1 to P.40 and M.O.1 to M.O.11 were marked on the side of the prosecution.
….5.
6. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell as set-out through the oral and documentary evidences is as follows:-
6.1. The deceased in this case is Tmt.Ramani, wife of the accused. P.W.1/Tr.Murali is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2/Tr.Subramani is the father, P.W.3/Tr.Prabhu is another brother and P.W.4/Tmt. Pavun is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was married to the accused on 10.04.2019. At the time of marriage she was given 17 sovereigns of gold jewels and other seervarisai articles. The motherin-law of the deceased demanded more jewels and a house and instigated the accused to beat the deceased. The accused used to strangulate the deceased with her Thali thread while she was sleeping and harassed her. The deceased used to complaint of the same to her parents and also will come to the parents home crying. They would console her and the accused would also come and take her back after consoling the deceased. As the accused was repeatedly beating and harassing the deceased, her parents also set-up a separate residence for her. The accused would quarrel with the deceased and beat her. He would further threaten her that she should not disclose it to her parents. Further the accused used to suspect the deceased even when she talk with the neighbour. The accused was torturing the deceased
….6.
suspecting her fidelity and demanding more jewels. So, the deceased was brought to her parent’s house and was staying at her parents house. Once, the accused saw the deceased talking with one Salamon
Charles, a neighbour, and quarrel with the said Salamon Charles. When the accused came to take the deceased with him, P.W.4(mother of the deceased) told him he is strangulating and threatening the deceased with knife and asked him to bring his mother. But, his mother didn’t turn up. Further without the knowledge of her brothers and parents the accused used to talk with the deceased over phone and some times take her out. Similarly on the date of occurrence on 21.07.2020 between 4.30 and 5.30 p.m. the accused had phoned the deceased and ask her to come. The deceased went out saying that she is going to the shop. As the deceased didn’t return after 10 minutes. P.W.1 (Brother) and P.W.2 (Father) went in search of her. At the time some public in the road told them that the deceased went with the accused in a bike. PW.1 has earlier warned the deceased not to go with the accused. As she went inspite of warning, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went in search of the deceased in a motor cycle to the house of the accused situated at the place of occurrence at 17th West Cross Street, M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai. They saw the bike of the accused parked outside. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of the
….7.
accused in the first floor, they heard the loud sound of T.V. running.
Further they heard the scream of the deceased. They knock the door.
It didn’t open. So they forcefully pushed the door and opened it. When they entered inside the house they saw the accused cutting the deceased with the sickle (Aruval) repeatedly on her neck. Seeing the incident both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were put to shock. When P.W.1 tried to catch the accused, he pushed P.W.1 away and threatened to cut them and escaped from there.
6.2. P.W.3/Tr.Prabhu, another brother of the deceased and
P.W.4/Tmt.Pavun, the mother of the deceased, after coming to know from the information given by P.W.1, that the deceased had gone with the accused, they also went to the house of the accused. When they reached and stop near the house of the accused, they saw the accused coming out of the house in a tense manner and was running away. Seeing the accused going, both P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to the first floor of the building and saw that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were crying and the deceased will lying in a pool of blood with the injuries on her neck, chest, ankle and various parts of the body.
6.3. While the occurrence took place, P.W.5/Tr.Rathinam who was previously residing at 17th West Cross Street, M.K.B. Nagar,
….8.
Vyasarpadi, Chennai and his friend P.W.6/Tr.Elumalai, who also resided in the same building situated adjacent to the place of occurrence, were talking in the terrace Veranda. At about 05.00 p.m. P.W.6 saw the accused coming along with the deceased Tmt.Ramani and going inside his house. After some time they heard the knocking of the door. Thereafter they saw the accused rushing out of the house. They heard crying voice. They came down and saw inside the house of the accused and found the deceased in a pool of blood with cut injuries. Further, they saw P.Ws. 1 and 2 present in the house. They came to know that they are the brother and father of the deceased and P.W.2 told them that the accused has cut his daughter and running away.
6.4. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have identified the weapon of assault, namely the sickle (Aruval) marked as P.M.O.1. They also identified the blood stained dresses worn by the accused and the deceased at the time of occurrence. They have identified P.M.O.2 as the shirt worn by the accused and P.M.O.3 as the pant worn by the accused at the time of occurrence. Further, they identified P.M.O.4 as the in-skirt, P.M.O.5 as the blouse, P.M.O.6 as the saree of the deceased. P.W.4 has identified the brassier of the deceased marked as P.M.O.7.
….9.
6.5. After witnessing the occurrence P.Ws 1 to 4 were put to shock. They sat in the place of occurrence crying for some time and they recovered from the shock and decided to lodge a complaint with the police. Accordingly, they went to the M.K.B Nagar police station and P.W.1 lodged a Complaint in Ex-P.1.
6.6. P.W.18/Tr.Thiyagarajan was then working as Inspector of Police, Law and Order at M.K.B Nagar Police Station. On 21.07.2020 at about 18.30 hours he received the complaint/Ex-P.1 given by P.W.1 and registered the case in Cr. No.758/2020 under Section 302 and 506(2) of IPC. Ex-P.29 is the First Information Report. He submitted the same to the Court and took up the case for further investigation. The F.I.R is received by the Learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at 4.45 p.m. on 22.07.2020 as per the endorsement made in the F.I.R.
6.7. P.W.18 took up the case for investigation and he went to the place of occurrence and at about 19.45 hours in the presence of witnesses
P.W.7/Tr.Arul and Tr.Johnson prepared the observation mahazar/ExP.2 and rough sketch/Ex-P.30. Further in the presence of Panch witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the place of occurrence on the same day between 19.50 hours and 21.20 and prepared the inquest report in Ex-P.31 (Carbon Copy). The
….10.
original inquest which was found available in the court records and is also marked as Ex-P.38.
6.8. Further on the same day between 22.00 and 22.30 hours in the presence of the same witnesses P.W.7/Tr.Arul and Tr.Johnson, he recovered P.M.O.6-Blood stained Saree, P.M.O.8-Blood stained towel, P.M.O.9-Blood stained piece of floor tiles and P.M.O.10Sample piece of floor tiles from the place of occurrence under the cover of Recovery-Mahazar in Ex-P.32. Further he examined the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 7 and recorded their statements.
6.9. P.W.7/Tr.Arul has deposed corroborating the preparation of ExP.2/Obervation-Mahazar. But, didn’t not support P.W.18 regarding the recovery of P.M.Os. at the place of occurrence. But, he identified his signature in the recovery mahazar marked as Ex-P.3. Further during cross-examination by the prosecution he would admit that the material objects P.M.O.6, P.M.O.8 to P.M.O.10 were recovered from the place of occurrence and he signed as a witness.
6.10. In the meantime on the same intervening night on 22.07.2020 at about 2.00 a.m. he received information that the accused is found near North Avenue, M.K.B. Nagar. P.W.18 went to that place and
….11.
arrested the accused. The accused gave a voluntary confession statement which was recorded by P.W.18 between 2.15 a.m. to 3.15 a.m. in the presence of witnesses P.W.10/Tr.Baskar and Tr.Sahayaraj.
The accused gave a disclosure statement that he will produced the Sickle (Aruval) and blood stained cloth which are kept hidden by him near the bridge at North Avenue Road. Ex-P.33 is the admissible portion of the disclosure statement.
6.11. Further the accused disclosed information about purchasing a sickle at Allikulam Complex in the platform shop and sharpened it in a knife grinding shop at Pulianthope. Ex-P.34 is the admissible portion of the information given by the accused.
6.12. Based on the above disclosure statement in Ex-P.33, the accused took them to the place near the bridge at North Avenue Road and identified and produced the polythene cover with the name written as ‘Nalli’ containing a blood stained sickle (P.M.O.1) and blood stained shirt and pant (P.M.O.2 and P.M.O.3 respectively). The same was recovered by P.W.18 under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.35. M.O.11 is the said Polythene cover.
….12.
6.13. P.W.10/Tr.Baskar has corroborated the evidence of P.W.18 regarding the arrest, confession and recovery of material objects. The signature of P.W.10 in the confession statement is marked as Ex-P.6 and in the Recovery-Mahazar is marked as Ex-P.7. He identified P.M.Os. 1 to 3 and P.M.O.11 as the properties recovered by the Police. Thereafter, the accused was sent for remand and the case properties in P.M.Os.1 to 3 and 11 were submitted to the Court under Form-95 in Ex-P.36. and P.M.Os. 6 and 8 to 10 were submitted to Court under Form-95 in Ex-P.37.
6.14. Further P.W.18 (I.O.) in continuation of his investigation sent the body of the deceased Tmt.Ramani from the place of occurrence to
Government Stanley Hospital with the requisition for conducting Postmortem through Police constable P.W.14/Tr.John D’Souza.
6.15. P.W.13/Dr.Janani, who was then working as Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Hospital, conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Tmt.Ramani on 22.07.2020 at 11.15 a.m. and issued the postmortem report in Ex-P.8, which reads as below:
….13.
The body was first seen by the undersigned at 12.15 PM on 22-JUL-2020. Its condition then was Rigor mortis present all over the body. Post-Mortem commenced at 12.15 PM on 22-JUL-2020. Appearances found at the Post-Mortem Averagely built adult female body with post-mortem staining present faintly over back and dependant parts of body. Length 155cm, breadth 37cm. Deceased wearing dark green blouse, white bra, Light green in-skirt, red thread in hip and red glass bangles in right wrist. Left hand and wrist present separately. Scalp hair: black, 23cm.
External examination
1. Multiple overlapping bone cut injuries of sizes 26, 17, 6,6,6 cms x14 to 11 cm x vertebra deep present over front and left side neck and upper chest wall with gaping of margins. On further dissection, margins are clean cut, underlying muscles, tissues are clean cut. Neck muscles, Carotids, Jugular vessels, cut through and through on both sides. On further dissection, larynx cut at multiple places, esophagus severed at upper and near thyroid cartilage. Vertebra transected at the level of C3,4,5, spinal cord transected. Head attached to neck and chest by few skin tags on the right side of neck.
2. Two bone deep cut injuries 26 x 11 cm over back of neck andupper chest, horizontally placed, located 25 cm below vertex. On further dissection, margins are clean cut, underlying tissues are clean cut, clean cut fracture of Cervical vertebrae 3,4,5,6 seen.
….14.
3. Two bones deep cut injuries 13 and 10 cm x 5 cm placedhorizontally over back of neck and lower occipital region, placed 21 cm below vertex.
4. 5 x 1 cm x bone deep stab injury located over left side back ofneck, placed 5cm below left ear and 1 cm below lower margin of injury no3.
5. 13 x 4 cm x bone deep curvilinear cut injury over back of lefthand with clean cut margins.
6. 24 x 6cm x through and through cut injury left forearm middlethird with traumatic amputation of left forearm.
7. 38 x 4 cm x bone deep oblique cut injury over left arm middle andouter aspect, with downward bevelling with clean fracture of left humerus lower third.
8. 10 x 3 cm x muscle deep cut injury over left outer aspect of leftbreast.
Internal examination:
Heart: Valves intact. Coronaries patent. All chambers empty. Lungs: Both lungs pale. Stomach Mucosa pale. Cavity empty. Small intestine contained bile stained fluid with no specific odour. Mucosacongested. Large intestine distended with gas. Liver: Surface intact, cut section pale. Spleen & both Kidneys: Surface intact, cut section pale Pelvis: intact. Uterus: surface intact, cavity contains blood.
….15.
Spinal column: described in external examination. Head: scalp, skull intact. Brain pale.
Opinion as to cause of death
The deceased would appear to have died of: multiple cut injuries sustained to neck.
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.
Time since death: about 12-24 hour prior to examination.
6.16. Further, the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination of Forensic Science Department, Chennai. Toxicological report/ExP.9 was received with the opinion that no poison is substance was detected. Further the blood sample was sent for grouping examination and the Serology report/Ex-P.10 was received with the opinion that the blood group of the deceased is of the group ‘A’. Based on the above examination P.W.13 has given an opinion that the deceased has died due to multiple cut injuries sustained to neck. She has further gave an opinion that the injuries found on the deceased is possible with P.M.O.1(Sickle).
6.17. After postmortem the blood stained dresses of the deceased in
P.M.Os. 4, 5 and 7 were handed over by P.W.13/Dr.Janani to the
Investigating Officer (P.W.18), which was recovered under Form-95
….16.
in Ex-P.39 and submitted the same to Court. On the same day P.W.18 examined the witnesses P.W.10/Tr.Baskar, Tr.Sahayaraj, P.W.9/Tr.Gobinath, Tr.Prabhu, P.W.11/Tr.Manohar, P.W.12/Tr.Riyas and P.W.13/Dr.Janani and recorded their statements.
6.18. P.W.8/Tr.Kalviyarasan was then working as S.I. of Police at M.K.B.
Nagar Police Station. On 21.07.2020 he accompanied the
Investigating Officer/P.W.18 to the place of occurrence and as per the instructions given by P.W.18, he took photographs at the place of occurrence using his mobile phone camera and returned to the Police
Station and took print out of the same using the computer in the Police Station. Ex-P.4 are the photographs taken at the place of occurrence and Ex-P.5 is the Certificate under Section 65B(4) for producing the said digital evidence.
6.19. P.W.9/Tr.Gobinath is residing at No.19th Cross Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai. He is doing centering work. On the date of occurrence on 21.07.2020 at about 11.30 p.m. he came out of his house to attend a phone call received in his mobile phone. At that time he saw the accused moving in a suspicious manner. Thereafter, on the same night at about 2.30 p.m. he heard the noise and came out. He saw the police vehicle and there were 3 person standing. When he went and asked
….17.
them, they told them that a person has killed his wife and he has been caught. At the time he was shown a red bag with the knife and blood stained cloths. He identified the accused as a person whom he saw earlier. He has further identified P.M.O.11 as the Polythene cover and P.M.O.1 as the Sickle (Aruval) seen by him. Further he has stated that he could not identified the blood stained cloths.
6.20. P.W.11/Tr.Manoharan is running an iron shop in the Allikulam Commercial Complex. He has identified the accused and has deposed that on 20.07.2020, the accused came to his shop and purchased P.M.O.1/Sickle for Rs.250/-. P.W.12/Tr.Riyas is the witness who is running a knife grinding shop at Pulianthope. He is examined to prove that the accused sharpened the sickle at his shop. However he has deposed that he does not remember the person who came to the shop and turned hostile. The information regarding these witnesses and place of purchase of the Sickle and the place of grinding is disclosed by the accused in Ex-P.34, admissible portion of the confession.
6.21. Further P.W.18 examined P.W.8/Tr.Kalviyarasan, S.I. of Police took photographs at the place of occurrence and received the photographs in Ex-P.4 series.
….18.
6.22. After collecting the above mentioned material objects in P.M.Os 1 to
10, P.W.18 gave a requisition to the concerned jurisdictional Learned Magistrate to send the case properties for forensic examination and the same was sent through P.W.14, Police Constable.
6.23. Further, in continuation of the investigation, on 29.07.2020 and
30.07.2020 P.W.18 (I.O.) gave requisition to the Assistant Executive
Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vyasarpadi and Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Erukkancheri, seeking particulars regarding any power cut on the date of occurrence.
P.W.15/Tr. Ramaiah, The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, Vyasarpadi received the requisition from the Investigating Officer and gave a report in Ex-P.11 stating that there was no power cut on 21.07.2020 between 6.00 a.m. and 22.07.2020 morning 6.00 a.m. Similarly, P.W.16/Tr.Kanivalan, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Erukkancheri, gave a report in Ex-P.12 (copy was marked as the original is not filed in this Court) reporting that as per the records there was no complaint of power cut received on the days 21.07.2020 and 22.07.2020. P.W.18 (I.O.) examined both the witnesses P.W.15 and P.W.16 and recorded their statements.
….19.
6.24. Further in continuation of his investigation, he gave a requisition to Nodal officer P.W.17/Tr.David Joseph Paulraj to furnish the call detail records (C.D.R.), customer application and certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act for the mobile number 9791176405, that belongs to one Samson, the neighbour of the deceased; mobile number 9384611616 that belongs to the deceased and mobile number 9840166454 that belongs to the accused for the period 01.04.2020 to 26.07.2020.
6.25. P.W.17, the Nodal Officer received the said requisition and gave a reply furnishing the same through his letter in Ex-P.13. Ex-P.14 is the customer application form for the mobile number 9791176405 that stands in the name of Salamon Charles, son of Thangaraj at No.6A, Sundaram 6th Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39. Ex-P.15 is the customer application form for the mobile number 9384611616 that stands in the name of Ramkumar, S/o. Subramani at No.87, Sundaram 6th Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39, that was used by the deceased. Ex-P.16 is the customer application form for the mobile number 9840166454 that stands in the name of the accused Charles
Rajkumar, S/o. Samson Ashokkumar at No.21/88, 19th West Cross
Street, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39. He further
….20.
handed over Ex-P.17, C.D.R. for the mobile number 9840166454, Ex-P.18 is the C.D.R. for the mobile number 9384611616 and ExP.19 is the C.D.R. for the mobile number 9791176405. (Ex-P.19 is not filed with the final report and it was produced at the time of examination of P.W.18 and it was marked subjected to the objection that Ex-P.20 certificate is not applicable to Ex-P.19 raised on the side of the accused). Ex-P.20 is the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act for issuing the call details records in Ex-P.17 to ExP.19. As Ex-P.20 covers Ex-P.17 to Ex-P.19, the objection raised on the side of the accused cannot be sustained.
6.26. P.W.17, the Nodal Officer has further identified the relevant entries in the CDRs. In Ex-P.18 (CDR for the mobile number 9384611616 that was used by the deceased), Ex-P.21 is the entry on 21.07.2020 for making a call from the mobile number 9384611616 to the mobile number 9840166454 at 4.59 p.m.; Ex-P.22 is the entry found on 21.07.2020 for making an outgoing call from the mobile number 9384611616 to the mobile number 9840166454 at 5.12 p.m.; Ex-P.23 is the entry on 21.07.2020 for making an incoming call to 9384611616 from 9840166454 at 5.14 p.m.; and Ex-P.24 is the entry on 21.07.2020 for making a call from the mobile number
….21.
9384611616 to mobile number 9840166454 at 5.23 p.m. When these calls in Ex-P.21 to Ex-P.24 were made the mobile number of the deceased in 9384611616 was located at Erukkancheri High Way.
6.27. The corresponding entries in Ex-P.17 (CDR for the mobile No. 9840166454 that belongs to the accused) for the calls in Exs-P.21 to
P.24 are marked as Ex-P25 to Ex-P.28 respectively. When the calls in Ex-P.25 to Ex-P.27 were made the mobile number 9840166454 that belongs to the accused was located at M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai. When the last call in Ex-P.28 was made the said mobile number was located at Erukkancheri High Way, which is the place the mobile number of the deceased was located at that time.
6.28. Further P.W.17 has deposed that there was no calls received in
Mobile Number 9840166454 from 21.07.2020 at 5.23 p.m. to
23.07.2020 and that it may be due to the mobile being switch off.
6.29. Further P.W.17 has stated that in Ex-P.19 the CDR for the mobile number 9791176405, that belongs to the neighbour of the deceased namely Samson, there is no entries found between 01.04.2020 to
26.07.2020 for making any calls to or from the mobile number 9384611616 that was used by the deceased.
….22.
6.30. P.W.18, the Investigating Officer examined P.W.17 (Nodal officer) and recorded his statement and received the above materials. On his examination of the CDR there was no entries to show that any calls were made between the mobile numbers used by the deceased and one Samson, with whom she was suspected by the accused to have relationship. On the other hand, he found that on 21.07.2020 between 16.95 and 17.25 hours there were 4 calls between the mobile number used by the deceased and the accused and it also showed that the deceased had been taken from Erukkancheri High Way to M.K.B. Nagar from the entries in Ex-P.21 to Ex-P.24 and Ex-P.25 to Ex-P.28.
6.31. Further, the Forensic Lab reports for examination done on the material objects were sent to Court. Ex-P.40 is the Serology report marked under Section 293 of Cr.P.C.
6.32. After examining the above witnesses and collecting the above materials, P.W.18 (I.O.) completed the investigation and laid a final report as against the accused for the offences under Section 498A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.
….23.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
7. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused was put to the accused and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During such examination, the accused admitted the relationship between himself and the deceased as husband and wife. But, he denied the incriminating materials as false and totally denied his complicity in committing the offence. The accused further reported no witnesses on his side and closed his defence.
8. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for
determination is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under sections 498A, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
9. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. In addition written argument submitted on the side of the accused.
….24.
10. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and examining the oral and documentary evidence in detail.
11. The relationship between the accused and the deceased and the
identity of the deceased are not denied or disputed. P.Ws. 1 to 4, the parents and siblings of the deceased have identified the deceased as Tmt. Ramani and further they have identified the accused as the husband of the deceased. Their marriage was held on 10.04.2019. This fact is not denied on the side of the accused during cross-examination of these witnesses.
12. The accused is charged for committing murder of his wife Tmt.Ramani. The cause of death of Tmt.Ramani is proved to be homicidal in nature by the prosecution by producing both oral and medical evidence. The cause of death that the deceased had died due to multiple cut injuries sustained in the neck is established and proved through P.W.13/Dr. Janani, who had conducted postmortem and issued postmortem report in Ex-P.8. The injuries found on the body of the deceased would clearly established that the deceased was brutally attacked with a sharp weapon. Her neck is almost severed from her trunk and it was just attached with a few skin tags on the right side of neck. There is severe cut injuries on her head, neck, on her upper limbs and chest. The left forearm middle third was found with traumatic amputation of left forearm. Further P.W.13 has given opinion that the cut injuries found on the body is
….25.
possible by P.M.O.1/Sickle (Aruval) which is produced on the side of the prosecution as a weapon of assault. The above injuries would establish the clear and solid intention to kill the deceased with no chance of escape. The injuries found on the deceased are so fatal and sufficient to cause instant death.
13. Having proved that the deceased is brutally murdered, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was done by the accused.
14. In the light of the above proved facts, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the occurrence is proved by examining the eye witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have seen the accused cutting the deceased at his residence. It is further contended that the presence of the accused at the time and place of occurrence and his escape after committing the occurrence is witnessed by P.Ws. 3 and 4 as well as the independent neighbouring witnesses P.Ws. 5 to 6. Thus, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the complicity of the accused is established by the fact that on the same night the accused was arrested and based on his disclosure statement P.M.O.1/Sickle which was used by him in committing the offence and his blood stained cloths was recovered. She further submitted that the witnesses have identified and prove P.M.Os. 1 to 3 and that the forensic report would prove that it contained human blood to establish the link with the crime.
….26.
15. It is further submitted on the side of the prosecution that the movement of the accused and the deceased and that the accused had come and picked the deceased on the date of occurrence after making cell-phone communication and taken her to his residence at M.K.B. Nagar is also established by examining P.W.17, the Nodal-officer from the mobile company and by producing the call details records.
16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contented that the minor contradiction and inconsistencies pointed out on the side of the accused during cross-examination are not relevant and that the same will not affect the prosecution case in any manner. It is further submitted that the prosecution has prove from the oral testimonies of the brothers and parents of the deceased that the accused suspected her and was treating her with cruelty and harassed her. So, it is submitted that the motive and preparation made by the accused to commit murder by purchasing the P.M.O.1/Sickle from a shop at Allikulam complex, is also proved by examination P.W.11/Manoharan. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by producing strong and reliable eye witnesses and other corroborating materials.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused would argued that there is contradiction regarding the time of occurrence mentioned by witness
….27.
and there is also correction found in the complaint in Ex-P.1 which will create reasonable doubt that the accused would have been falsely implicated in this case. Further he submitted that there is contradiction between P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the time in which the deceased was taken by the accused in the motor cycle. Further he submitted that without even verifying whether the deceased was dead and not even giving any medical treatment, it is doubtful that P.W.1 would have lodged a complaint. Further, it is submitted that the material witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 are relatives of the deceased and therefore the absence of independent witnesses will creates doubt upon the prosecution case.
18. Further, the learned counsel for the accused would argued that the CDR’s produced on the side of the prosecution would show that the phone calls were made near Erukkancheri High Road and not near the house of the accused. Further he submitted that, the Investigating Officer has not made any enquiry regarding the SMS received in the mobile phone of the deceased at 7.45 p.m. on the date of occurrence. Hence he submitted that the call detail records produced on the side of the prosecution cannot be relied upon.
19. Further, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of P.W5 and P.W.6 are inconsistent and contradictory to the version given to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that P.W.7, who is the relative of the deceased has
….28.
only subscribed the signature in the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar and he is unable to say about the materials recovered. Further he submitted that P.W.8, the photographer would state that he took 10 photographs, but only 4 of them are produced and therefore it causes doubt upon the prosecution case. Further, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that, the arrest and recovery of material objects is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as there is material contradiction. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.11 is unbelievable as he had deposed that he identified the accused and the weapon through mobile phone photo and he has not seen the accused produced by the Police directly for identification. Therefore, he submitted that P.W.11 is tutored witness and he cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that one Salamon Charles, who is cited as a witness on the side of the prosecution, is not examination to prove the motive. Therefore, it raises doubt upon the prosecution case. Based on the above contentions, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence in the light of the above rival contentions, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the brother and father of the deceased are so clear and cogent regarding the occurrence that took place on the date of occurrence. They have vividly
….29.
described the facts regarding the deceased going to shop at about 4.00 to 4.30
p.m. and that she did not returned home, so they went in search of her and came to know that the deceased has left with the accused in the motor cycle. Further, they have cogently deposed that soon thereafter P.W.1 and P.W.2 went in a motor cycle in search of the deceased to the house of the accused situated at the place of occurrence. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly stated that when they reached the house of the accused and went to the first floor they heard the noise of the T.V. running and the door was closed. When they tried to open the door it was not opened, so they used force and pushed the door open and gained entry and they witnessed the accused brutally cutting the deceased with sickle on her neck several times. Thereafter the accused has showed the knife towards them and after threatening them he escaped from the place of occurrence.
21. The above testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not shaken in any manner during cross-examination. Even during cross-examination both P.W.1 and P.W.2 has consistently reiterated the fact seen by them. The contention on the side of the accused that there is contradiction in their evidence regarding the time when the deceased was taken by the accused and the time of occurrence is not sustainable. They has cleared stated consistently stated the time and manner of occurrence. There is no material contradiction in this regard.
….30.
22. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is also corroborated in material particulars by P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are another brother and mother of the deceased respectively. They have also clearly deposed that on the date of occurrence P.W.1 informed P.W.3 about the deceased going with the accused and that after getting such information both P.Ws. 3 an 4 went to the house of the accused situated at the place of occurrence in 7th West Cross Street, M.K.B. Nagar. At the time they reached the house of the accused both of them saw the accused going out of the house in a hurried manner. When they went inside the house they found the deceased in a pool of blood with several cut injuries on her neck, chest, hands and body. They also found P.W.1 and P.W.2 present there. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would clearly established the fact that the deceased and the accused were found together at the place of occurrence at the date and time of occurrence. The fact that the accused was present at the place of occurrence on the date and time of occurrence and that he went out of the house hurriedly after the occurrence is also witnessed and corroborated by two independent witnesses namely P.W.5 and P.W.6. Both P.W.5 and P.W.6 are residing in the neighbouring building adjacent to the place of occurrence. P.W.5 and P.W6 do not have any relationship or enmity with the accused. At the time of occurrence both were charting in the 2nd floor terrace varanda of the building. P.W.6/Tr.Elumalai has clearly stated that at about 5.00 p.m. he saw the accused coming with deceased and entering into the house along with deceased
….31.
Tmt.Ramani. Both P.W.5 and P.W.6 have stated that they saw the accused hurriedly running out of his house and that after hearing noise when they went and saw in the house of the accused they found the deceased in a pool of blood with injuries and dead. P.W.5 would clearly state that he saw the accused running with the knife in his hand with blood stained cloths and then when he went and saw in the house of the accused the T.V. was running loudly and the deceased was found dead in a pool of blood. They have corroborated the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, brother and father of the deceased at the time. P.W.6 further deposed that when he asked about the occurrence, the father of the deceased said that the accused had cut his daughter and ran away. This is also a fact relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as Res Gestae Evidence Act.
23. The above testimonies of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 is clearly corroborated by Ex-P.1/Complaint and Ex-P.29/FIR. Further, it is corroborated by Ex-P.31/Inquest-report. The presence of the eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 is also corroborated by P.Ws. 3 to 6 who saw the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 when the reached the house of the accused soon after the occurrence. Hence, their presence can be believed and relied upon.
24. Further, on careful examination of the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 6, but for eliciting certain minor contradiction here and there, there is no
….32.
material contradictions to discredit their evidence in any manner. In cases of this nature one cannot expect all the witnesses to deposed in the stereo-typed and ditto manner. They is possibility of minor contradictions which cannot be avoided. The law regarding the relevance of contradiction in a criminal case is laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in CDJ 2022 SC 486 Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth
Singh Versus The State of Bihar, wherein it is held that;
“17. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed on hand or foot but the constant narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on informant PW-6. However, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission as observed by this court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457. This Court while considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, held that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment reads as under:
“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars
….33.
from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.”
25. By applying the above ratio to the facts on hand there is no such material contradiction to discredit the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6. There is no material contradiction in the time of occurrence. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 has confirmed during cross-examination that the occurrence took place between 5.15 and 6.00 p.m. This fact is also corroborated by P.Ws. 3 to 6. They have further clearly stated that after they recovered from the shock by taking 10 to 20 minutes, they went to the police station where P.W.1 lodged the Complaint. ExP.1/Complaint is hand-written by P.W.1.
26. The Learned counsel for the accused pointed out regarding the correction in the complaint that may causes doubt upon the prosecution case. But on careful examining Ex-P.1, the complaint is hand written by P.W.1 in a shock and tense mindset. The fact narrated in Ex-P.1 in materially consistent with what is deposed before this Court. The alleged corrections made in Ex-P.1
….34.
are only spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes. They are not in any manner relevant to doubt the correctness and truthfulness of the complaint. Even in such shocking situation P.W.1 has clearly narrated in the complaint all material facts regarding the motive for the occurrence and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place. The oral testimony is fully corroborated by ExP.1/Complaint and Ex-P.29/F.I.R. in all material particulars. There is no material contradiction and inconsistencies established during the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the eye witnesses. Therefore, contention regarding time of lodging complaint and corrections found therein made on the side of the accused cannot be sustainable.
27. In fact due to the cruelty and harassment made by the accused the deceased had come to her parents home and was residing their much prior to the occurrence. The accused used to come and meet the deceased. When he asked the parents to send the deceased, they have refused stating that the accused was threatening the deceased. Further, the accused used to talk with the deceased over phone and take her out. These fact are cogently spoken by P.Ws. 1 to 4.
28. The fact that on the date of occurrence the accused had
communicated with the deceased and taken her with him is further corroborated and established by the prosecution by producing the digit electronic evidence of
….35.
the mobile phone call detail records (CDR) of both the deceased and the
accused.
29. Ex-P.15 is the customer application form for the mobile number 9384611616 that stands in the name of Ramkumar, S/o. Subramani, which was used by the deceased at the time of occurrence. Ex-P.16 is the customer application for the mobile number 9840166454 which stands in the name of accused Charles Rajkumar, S/o. Samson Ashokkumar. This mobile number is used by the accused at the time of occurrence.
30. The call details records in Ex-P.17 for the mobile number 9840166454 used by the accused and the call details records in Ex-P.18 for the mobile number 9384611616 used by the deceased would clearly establish that on the date of occurrence i.e., 21.07.2020, prior to the occurrence the accused has contacted the deceased over mobile phone and later had come from MKB
Nagar to Erukanchery Highway to pick up the deceased. The relevant entries in Ex-P.21 to Ex-P.24 in Ex-P.18 and Ex-P25 to Ex-P.28 in Ex-P.17 would established that on 21.07.2020 at about 4.59 p.m. an out going call is made from the mobile number of the deceased to the mobile number of the accused. ExP.21 would show that at that time the mobile number of the deceased was located at Erukkancheri High Road, Vyasarpadi. Ex-P.25 would show that at
….36.
that time the mobile number of the accused was located at Door No.56, 16th Cross Street, M.k.B. Nagar, Chennai.
31. Ex-P.22 shows that the next call is made at 5.12 p.m. from the mobile number of the deceased to the mobile number of the accused. At that time the mobile number of the deceased has moved to a different location in Erukkancheri High Road. Ex-P.26 shows that mobile of the accused was in the same location at MKB Nagar.
32. Ex-P.23 and Ex-P.27 shows that the third call is made from the mobile number of the accused to the deceased at 5.14 p.m. At the time also the mobile number by the accused is located at M.K.B. Nagar and that of deceased is located at Erukkencheri High Road.
33. Ex-P.24 and Ex-P.28 shows that the last call is made at 5.23 pm. from the mobile number of the deceased to the mobile number of the accused.
Ex-P.24 show that the mobile number of the deceased is located at Erukkancheri High Road, Vyasarpadi and at the same time Ex-P.28 would show that the mobile number of the accused was also located at Erukkancheri, Vyasarpadi.
This shows that the accused have moved from MKB Nagar to Erukencherry High Road where the deceased was present.
….37.
34. The call details records are all proved by examining P.W.17, the
Nodal Officer, the admissibility is supported by Ex-P.20 certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act given by him to prove the digital evidence. The above call details records in Exs-P.21 to P.28 together with the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W2 and that of P.W.6, who has seen the accused going into his house at MKB Nagar along with the deceased, would clearly establish and prove that the on the date of occurrence i.e., 21.07.2020, the accused had pickup the deceased in his motor cycle and taken her to the place of occurrence at about 5.30 p.m. The occurrence has taken place thereafter, which was witnesses by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and then lodged a complaint at 6.30 p.m. naming the accused as the assailant.
35. Therefore, the fact that the accused has pick the deceased on the date of occurrence on 21.07.2020 at about 5.30 p.m. from Erukkancheri High Road and taken her to M.K.B. Nagar to the place of occurrence is clearly established by the prosecution beyond any iota of doubt.
36. In the light of the materials discussed above there is no material to doubt the presence of the P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the time of occurrence and they witnessing the accused butchering the deceased with P.M.O.1/Sickle.
….38.
37. P.M.O.1 is identified and proved by the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 as the weapon of assault. The arrest, confession and recovery of the weapon of assault P.M.O.1 based on the confession and disclosure statement given by the accused is prove by P.W.18, the Investigating Officer and corroborated by P.W.10, the witness for the same. P.W.18 (I.O.) has clearly deposed that he received information about the presence of the accused near North Avenue Road, M.K.B. Nagar and he went their and arrested the accused and that the accused gave the disclosure statements in Ex-P.33 and Ex-P.34. Based on the disclosure statement given by the accused in Ex-P.33, P.W.18 recovered P.M.O.1/Blood stained sickle (Aruval), P.M.O.2 and P.M.O.3 blood stained shirt and pant and P.M.O.11 the polythene bag in which they were kept from the place of hiding by the accused. Further based on the disclosure statement in Ex-
P.34 the Investigating Officer is able to terrace the witness P.W.11/Tr.Manoharan from whom the accused has procured the weapon of assault (P.M.O.1) and P.W.12/Tr.Tr. Riyas, from whom the accused sharpened the sickle. P.W.11 has clearly identified the accused and the weapon P.M.O.1 as a weapon purchased by the accused from him. No doubt he has stated that he identified the accused and the weapon in the photographs shown to him through the mobile phone. It is not surprising that P.W.11 has identified the accused over mobile phone. In the present state of advanced information and communication technology and use of smart mobile phones by people it has
….39.
brought the world to their palm. So, the Court cannot still insist on the old and outdated techniques to the adopted to prove the case. It is quit natural that when such advance communication facilities are available, once it come to the knowledge of the Investigating officer about the place of purchase of the weapon, he could have immediately communicated and contacted P.W.11 over mobile phone and showed the photos of the accused and the weapon to confirm the same. So, there is nothing to doubt such conduct. P.W.11 has candidly testified the facts within his knowledge and stated about the facts about selling the weapon to the accused and identifying the accused and weapon at the time of investigation. Merely because the accused was not shown to P.W.1 directly and his identification over mobile phone does not discredit the evidence of P.W.11 in the presence of other attending circumstances that prove the recovery of P.M.O.1 from the possession of the accused and it identity as the weapon of assault by the eye-witnesses.
38. The recovery of P.M.Os. 1 to 3 from the accused is further proved to be relevant as they are subjected to forensic examination along with the other blood stained materials seized from the place of occurrence and the blood stained dresses of the deceased. Ex-P.10 the serology report would established that the blood sample taken from the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem is of the group ‘A’. Ex-P.40 the serology report on the examination
….40.
done on the material objects would establish that the blood stains found in all the material objects seized from the accused in P.M.Os. 1 to 3 are of human origin. Further it establish that the blood stains found in the shirt P.M.O.2 recovered from the accused is that of the group ‘A’, which belongs to the deceased. However, the blood grouping test on P.M.O.1/Sickel and P.M.O.3/Pant recovered from the accused could not be ascertain as the grouping test was inconclusive. However, the blood stains are found to be of human origin. The above forensic evidence would further established the link with the commission of the crime and his complicity in committing the crime.
39. Further the place of occurrence and the cause of death of the deceased is also corroborated and proved from Ex-P.2/observation mahazar and Ex-P.30/rough sketch as well as the inquest report in Ex-P.31 = Ex-P.38. The photos in Ex-P4 would also prove the place of occurrence. Since out of 10 photos taken, as there was similar photos, only 4 are submitted. Hence, the nonsubmission of the other photos does not raise any suspicion.
40. Therefore, the above discussed material would clearly established the date, time, place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence in which the accused has brutally butchered the deceased to death at his residence.
….41.
41. The available of electricity and that there was no power cut at the relevant time of occurrence is also prove from the testimony of P.Ws. 15 and 16, the Assistant Executive Engineers from the Electricity Board and Corporation of Chennai respectively and their reports in Exs.-P.11 and P.12.
42. The motive for the occurrence is said to have been that the accused suspected the fidelity of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would candidly established that the accused had been suspecting the deceased and used to frequent quarrel with her. Unable to bear the harassment given by the accused, the deceased had come to her parent’s home and was residing there prior to the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been clearly stated that the accused used to beat the deceased and strangulate her with Thaali chain and also threatened to kill the deceased several times, suspecting infidelity. While the deceased was staying in her parent’s house the accused had quarrel with one Tr.Samson for talking with the deceased. The prosecution has produced the ExP.19 the call details records (CDR) of the mobile phone that belongs to the said person Tr.Samson and able to establish that there was no communication calls made between the mobile numbers of the deceased and the said person. It is produced to make it clear that there was no relationship between the deceased and the said Samson and the accused had been suspecting her and unnecessary
….42.
harassing the deceased several times. The motive for the occurrence is also clearly proved and established through the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4.
43. Therefore, from the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has prove that the accused committed the murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt thereby proving the charge under Section 302 IPC.
44. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would established that the accused had frequently suspected the fidelity of the deceased and harassed her and further he has also demanded more jewels and subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. Due to which the deceased has come to her parents home. Hence the charge under Section 498A of IPC is also proved by the prosecution.
45. P.W.1 and P.W.2 would clearly deposed that at the time of
occurrence, after the accused cut the deceased and tried to make his escape. The accused threatened them with the Sickle. P.W.1 has deposed that “நநனன எததநதயய பதடகனக பபநனபபநத எனயன ன தடனடவதடனட உஙனகயளயமன வவடனடவதடபவனன
எனனற கறதவதடனட ஓடபபநயனவதடனடநநன .” He would further strengthen the fact during examination by stating that “சமனபவமன மடநதன உடனன எததநத எனனயன மதரடனட வதடனட ஒடவதடனடநரன எனனறநலன ஆமநமன. அபனபபநத எததநத எனயனன கததனதயய கநடனட
….43.
மதரடனடயதநக வசநனனனத எனனன கததனத எனனறநலன நநனன அயடயநளமன கநடனடய அ.சந.வபந.1.” This evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W2. Hence it is further established that the accused has criminally intimidated the witnesses with death at the time of occurrence. Hence the prosecution has also proved the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
46. To concluded, the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused as charged beyond all reasonable doubt and the point for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.
47. Result: In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under
Sections 498A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.
//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of May, 2022//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….44.
S.C. No.118/2020 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Charles Rajkumar )
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 10.05.2022 at 2.45 P.M.
48. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
ஒனனறமன இலயன ல.
49. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to
3.30 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2022.
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….45.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 118/2020 – DATED: 10.05.2022 AT
3.30 P.M.
50. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds there is no mitigating circumstances to show any leniency. The nature of injuries found on the deceased would show the graveness and the brutality in which the accused has premeditated and taken the deceased to his house and butchered her without any mercy and any concern for the invaluable human life. The only mitigating circumstances may be that he may remorse for his ghastly act and may reform in the long run. Hence, considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances this Court is of the view that this case may not fall under the category of rarest of rare case to impose capital punishment.
51. Hence, the accused is accordingly convicted under Section 498A, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced as below;
(i) to undergo THREE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to
pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month;
….46.
(ii) to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay fine of Rs.10000/under Section 302 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 3 months; and
(iii) to undergo SEVEN YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to
pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 506(ii) IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month;
(iv) the sentences imposed shall run concurrently;
(v) the period already undergone by the accused from 22.07.2020 to till date shall be set-off under Section 428 IPC;
(vi) Total fine Rs.20,000/-.
52. Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.: The case properties P.M.O.1Blood stained Aruval with wooden handle-1, P.M.O.2-Blood stained white colour shirt-1, P.M.O.3-Blood stained block colour pant, P.M.O.4-Green colour inskirt-1, P.M.O.5-Block colour blouse-1, P.M.O.6- Blood stained saree-1,
P.M.O.7-White colour brassier-1, P.M.O.8-Blood stained towel-1, P.M.O.9Blood stained tiles, P.M.O.10-Sample tiles and P.M.O.11-Red colour polythene bag named with Nalli are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
….47.
53. Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: – Perused the oral and documentary evidence and examined the fact and circumstances of the case. It is a deserving case to award compensation. The deceased was butchered by the accused before the eyes of her bother and father. The parents of the deceased P.W.2 and P.W.4 have lost their only daughter to the ghastly act of crime committed by the accused.
54. Section 357A Cr.P.C. provides for victim compensation scheme for the purpose of providing compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. In this case the father (P.W.2) and mother (P.W.4) of the deceased are considered to be dependents. If the deceased had been alive she would have taken care of the them and also shared her love and affection to them. Due to commission of the crime they suffered loss and injuries and required to be adequately compensated. Hence to meet the ends of justice it is necessarily to restitute the loss and injury suffered by them by means of adequate compensation.
55. Hence, out of the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by the accused this Court is inclined to award a compensation of Rs.7,500/- each to P.W.2Tr.Subramani (father of deceased) and P.W.4-Tmt.Pavun (mother of the deceased), under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. (Total Compensation Rs.15,000/-).
….48.
56. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. is only a pittance and not adequate to fully compensate them. Hence, it is necessary to recommend to The District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award adequate compensation to P.W.2 and P.W.4 out of the Victim Compensation Fund created under Section 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
57. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.20,000/- paid by the accused it is ordered to pay Rs.7500/- each to P.W.2-Tr.Subramani (father of the deceased) and P.W.4-Tmt. Pavun (mother of the deceased) as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Total compensation Rs.15,000/-. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
58. Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.2-Tr.Subramani (father of deceased) and P.W.4-
Tmt.Pavun (mother of the deceased), after due enquiry, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
59. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District
Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and
….49.
awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of May, 2022//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
List of Witnesses examined:
On the side of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 :: Tr.Murali (Brother of the accused)
P.W.2 :: Tr. Subramani (Father of the accused)
P.W.3 :: Tr. Prabhu (Brother of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Tmt. Pavun (Mother of the deceased)
P.W.5 :: Tr. Rathinam
P.W.6 :: Tr. Elumalai
P.W.7 :: Tr. Arul (Brother of the deceased)
P.W.8 :: Tr. Kalviyarasan (S.I. of Police)
P.W.9 :: Tr. Gopinath
P.W.10 :: Tr. Baskar
P.W.11 :: Tr. Manoharan
P.W.12 :: Tr. Riyas
P.W.13 :: Dr. Janani (Post-mortem doctor)
P.W.14 :: Tr. John Disosa (Gr.I Police Constable)
P.W.15 :: Tr. Ramaiya (Asst. Engineer, TNEB, Vyasarpadi)
P.W.16 :: Tr. Kanivalan (Asst. Engineer, TNEB, Erukkancheri)
….50.
P.W.17 :: Tr. David Joseph Paulraj (Nodal Officer)
P.W.18 :: Tr. Thiyagarajan (I.O.)
On the side of the accused: Nil

List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution:
Exhibit Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 21.07.2020 Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2 21.07.2020 Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 3 21.07.2020 P.W.7’s signature in the seizure mahazar
Ex-P. 4 … Photographs (series)
Ex-P. 5 22.07.2020 Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued with regard to photographs/videographs taken/copied on CD and print
Ex-P. 6 22.07.2020 P.W.10’s signature in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P. 7 22.07.2020 P.W.10’s signature in the seizure mahazar
Ex-P. 8 22.07.2020 Post-mortem Certificate (No.988/2020)
Ex-P. 9 07.09.2020 Toxicological Report (TOX.H.No.1332/2020)
Ex-P. 10 12.01.2022 Serology Report (T.No.3726/2020 SER’C’/90/2020)
Ex-P. 11 29.07.2020 Reply given by Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Vyasarpadi to the Inspector of Police
Ex-P. 12 30.07.2020 Report given by Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Erukkancheri.
….51.
Ex-P. 13 27.08.2020 Requisition letter
Ex-P. 14 12.10.2017 Airtel customer application form in the name of Salamon Charles
Ex-P. 15 22.02.2018 Airtel customer application form in the name of
Ramkumar
Ex-P. 16 05.03.2018 Airtel customer application form in the name of Chares Rajkumar (accused)
Ex-P. 17 … Copy of the Call details records for the Mobile No. 9840166454 from 01.04.2020 to 24.07.2020
Ex-P. 18 … Copy of the Call details records for the Mobile No. 9384611616 from 01.04.2020 to 24.07.2020
Ex-P. 19 … Copy of the Call details records for the Mobile No. 9791176405 from 01.04.2020 to 26.07.2020
Ex-P. 20 … Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act for the mobile Nos. 9791176405, 9384611616 and 9840166454
Ex-P. 21 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 16:59:07
Ex-P. 22 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 17:12:26
Ex-P. 23 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9384611616 dated
21.07.2020 time 17:14:52
Ex-P. 24 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 17:23:37
Ex-P. 25 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 16:59:07
Ex-P. 26 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 17:12:26
Ex-P. 27 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9384611616 dated
….52.
21.07.2020 time 17:14:52
Ex-P. 28 … Call details entry for the mobile No. 9840166454 dated
21.07.2020 time 17:23:36
Ex-P. 29 21.07.2020 First Information Report
Ex-P. 30 21.07.2020 Rough Sketch
Ex-P. 31 21.07.2020 Copy of the Inquest Report
Ex-P. 32 21.07.2020 Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained saree-1, Blood stained towel-1, Blood stained tiles and sample tiles)
Ex-P. 33 22.07.2020 Admissible portion in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P. 34 22.07.2020 Admissible portion in the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P. 35 22.07.2020 Seizure mahazar (Blood stained Aruval with wooden handle -1, Blood stained white colour shirt-1, Blood stained block colour pant and red colour polythene bag)
Ex-P. 36 22.07.2020 Form-95 (Blood stained Aruval with wooden handle-1)
Ex-P. 37 21.07.2020 Form-95 (Blood stained saree-1, Blood stained towel-1, Blood stained tiles and sample tiles
Ex-P. 38 21.07.2020 Original Inquest Report
Ex-P. 39 22.07.2020 Form-95 (Green colour inskirt-1, block colour blouse-1 and white colour brassier-1)
Ex-P. 40 12.01.2022 Serology Report (SER/65/2021)
On the side of accused: Nil
List of Material Objects Marked:
On the side of Prosecution:
….53.
Exhibit No. Particulars
P.M.O.1 Blood stained Aruval with wooden handle-1
P.M.O.2 Blood stained white colour shirt-1
P.M.O.3 Blood stained black colour pant -1
P.M.O.4 Green colour in-skirt-1
P.M.O.5 Black colour blouse-1
P.M.O.6 Blood stained saree-1
P.M.O.7 White Colour Brassier-1
P.M.O.8 Blood stained towel-1
P.M.O.9 Blood stained tiles
P.M.O.10 Sample tiles
P.M.O.11 Red colour polythene bag named Nalli
On the side of the Accused: Nil

Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. // TRUE COPY //

Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….54.