ARUMUGAMversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                    [2010] 9 S.C.R. 87


                       ARUMUGAM                              A
                             v.
  THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF
                       POLICE
          (Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2007)
                                                             8
                      JULY 28, 2010
     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Son committing
murder of step mother - Accused-son made extra judicial C
confession to his step sister and, thereafter, to Village
Administrative Officer in a short while - Recovery of rope used
for strangulation - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts
below - Justification of - Held: Justified - Accused after
making extra judicial confession did not try to run away - Heo
was annoyed with the mother as he suspected her of being of
low character - Medical evidence duly supported the ocular
evidence - Father and brother-in-law of the accused having
turned hostile would not affect the prosecution case.
     Accordicg to the prosecution case, the appellant E
committed the murder of S-step mother. He told PW5-step
sister that he had strangled and killed S. Thereafter, the
appellant made an extra-judicial confession to PW1-
Village Administrative Officer. The statement was
recorded in writing and FIR was registered. On basis of F
the statement, rope used for strangulating the deceased
was recovered. The post mortem examination was carried
out. The doctor opined that the death was on account of
asphyxia due to strangulation. The trial court convicted
and sentenced the appellant for life uls. 302 IPC. The High G
Court upheld the order. Hence the appeal.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
    HELD: 1.1 An extra-judicial confession is often called
                           87                              H
    88     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 9 S.C.R.

A a weak type of evidence but in the instant case it has
  certain distinctive features. It is of significance that the
  appellant had made the extra-judicial confession to PW5
  and thereafter to PW1 within a very short time and had
  not attempted to run away and he had been handed over
B to the police by PW1 at about 6 p.m. at the time when the
  FIR had been recorded. PW5 also admitted in her
  statement that the appellant was annoyed with the
  deceased as he suspected her of being of low character
  and an embarrassment to him and he had often asked her
c to mend her behaviour to which she had responded that
  she would live life on her terms and it was not his
  business to interfere in her life. Appellant's father-PW4
  and brother-in-law-PW3 had turned hostile but their
  evidence would have been merely to the effect that the
  appellant had found fault in the deceased's behaviour and
0
  in the background of the statement of PW 5 that the
  appellant was indeed annoyed with her mother, the
  factum of PWs.4 and 3 having turned hostile would not
  adversely affect the prosecution story. [Para 7] [92-D-H;
E 93-A]
       1.2 The medical evidence far from contradicting the
  ocular evidence clearly supports it. It has been submitted
  that body was in a decomposed state on the 20th March
  2000 at 4 p.m. when it was subjected to the post mortem
F examination which indicated that the incident must have
  happened much before 11 a.m. There is a basic flaw in
  this evidence. The Post mortem certificate shows that the
  post mortem had commenced at 4 p.m. and the finding
  was of a fracture in the body of the thyroid bone and that
G the deceased would appear to have died due to
  strangulation 27 to 30 hours prior to the commencement
  of the post-mortem. Thus, it cannot be said that the death
  had occurred prior to 11 a.m. on the 19th of March. The
  cause of death also reveals that the death had been
H caused by strangulation with a rope as there was ligature
   ARUMUGAM v. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS                     89
          INSPECTOR OF POLICE
mark on the neck. It has been submitted that as per the            A
evidence of PW5 the deceased was a healthy and strong
woman and was perhaps physically stronger than the
appellant and it would have been impossible for the
appellant to have strangulated her, cannot be accepted.
It is clear from the evidence that the appellant had               B
prepared well for the day and had apparently hidden the
rope in the field much earlier. It looks, therefore, that the
deceased, though a strong woman, had been
overwhelmed by a sudden attack and strangulated with
the rope, as no other injuries which could show signs of           c
a struggle, were found on the dead body. Thus, the
findings of the High Court and the trial court are upheld.
[Paras 8 and 9] [93-B-H]

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 515 of 2007.                                                   D

    From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2005 oftthe High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 392 of
2001.
                                                                   E
     Venkat Subramanyam, V. K. Sidharthan, Anup Kumar for
the Appellant.

    S. Thananjayan for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     F
     HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special
leave at the instance of the solitary accused arises out of the
following facts:

     2. Saroja was the second wife of PW2, the appellant's         G
father and, therefore, the step mother of the appellant. PW5 was
the appellant's step sister having been born out of the marriage
of PW2 and the deceased whereas PW3 was the husband of
PW5. All the persons aforementioned were residents of village
Thuluvaspushpagiri and were agriculturists by profession. PW2      H
    90      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A had lost his first wife, the mother of the appellant, about 22 years
  prior to the date of the incident, and one year after her death ·
  PW2 had married the deceased Saroja. It appears that Saroja
  was a lady of easy virtue and was involved with several persons
  in the village which had annoyed the appellant and he often
B asked her to behave in a dignified way. The deceased,
  however, told the appellant that it is not his business to interfere
  in her affairs as she was an independent person and entitled
  to live her life as she pleased. Saroja's affairs, however,
  continued to rankle the appellant.
c         3. At about 9 a.m. on 19th March 2000, PW5 and the
    deceased went to the field to perform their daily agricultural
    operations. At about 11 a.m. the appellant also arrived at that
    place and called out to the deceased to help him lift a bundle
    of firewood. The deceased walked towards the appellant and
D   both of them went into the sugarcane field. A short while later
    the appellant alone returned and when questioned by PW5 told
    him that ,,e had strangled and killed Saroja. The appellant also
    appeared before PW1 the Village Administrative Officer at 4
    p.m. and made an extra judicial confession that he had
E   murdered his step mother. The statement given by the appellant
    was reduced to writing (Ex.P-1) by PW1 and he also took the
    appellant to Santhavasal Police Station and handed him over
    along with the document Ex.P-1 to the Head Constable. A case
    was accordingly registered against the appellant under Section
F   302 of the IPC. The investigation was, however, taken over by
    PW15 the Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk, who was holding the
    additional charge of Santhavasal Police Station. PW15 reached
    the place of incident and recorded the statement of various
    witnesses and on the statement made by the appellant
G   recovered the rope used for strangling the deceased. The dead
    body was also sent to the hospital for its post-mortem
    examination which was performed the next day at about 4 p.m.
    by PW10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, ~ttached to the
    Government Hospital, who found the following injury on the dead
H   body:
   ARUMUGAM v. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS                        91
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
    "A ligature mark seen above thyroid cartilage encircling         A
    the neck completely. The width of the ligature mark was 3
    cm in size."

      4. The Doctor after receiving the report of the Chemical
Analyst opined that the death was on account of Asphyxia due
                                                                     8
to strangulation and that the death had occurred between the
27-30 hours prior to the autopsy. On the completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
The trial court on the basis of the evidence of PW1 to whom
the appellant had made the extra judicial confession which had       C
been reduced to the writing Ex.P1 which formed the basis of
FIR and the fact that the medical evidence supported the
contents of the extra judicial confession and that as per the
statement of PW5 the appellant had often called her mother
as being of low character woman which constituted the motive
for the offence, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment         D
for life under Section 302 of the IPC. The judgment of the trial
court was thereafter challenged in appeal in the Higfi Court
which too has been dismissed leading to the filing of the present
appeal.
                                                                     E
      5. It has been argued that the conviction of the appellant
only on the basis of the extra judicial confession was not called
for in the light of the fact that PW2 the father of the appellant,
his sister PW5 and her husband PW3 had turned hostile and
had not supported the prosecution. It has accordingly been           F
contended that there was, in fact, no valid evidence which could
be utilized for making an order of conviction. It has also been
submitted that as per the prosecution story the statement
Ex.P1 had been recorded at 4 p.m. but the FIR on its basis
had been recorded at 6 p.m. though the office of the Village
Administrative Officer and the Police Station shared a               G
common wall, was also a factor fatal to the prosecution story,
as the delay had not been explained. It has also been pleaded
that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence
in the light of the fact that (as per the Doctor) the body was in
                                                                     H
    92      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   a decomposed state and the occurrence had therefore
    happened before 11 a.m. on the 19th March 2000.

         6. The learned State counsel has, however, pointed out that
    both the trial court and the High Court on an appreciation of
    the evidence had recorded the conviction against him and there
8
    was absolutely no reason whatsoever to discard the statement
    of PW1 to whom the appellant had made an extra judicial
    confession and that the medical evidence fully supported the
    prosecution story far from the contradicting it.

C          7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    gone through the record. As per the prosecution siurv, the
    incident happened at 11 a.m. on 19th March 2000 in the fields
    adjoining village Thuluvaspushpagiri. Soon after committing the
    murder the appellant made a confession to PWS his step sister
D   that he had murdered her mother and, thereafter, repeated the
    same~ to PW1, the Village Administrative Officer who recorded
    the same in Ex.P1 a written memorandum which was handed
    over in the Police Station at 6 p.m. leading to the registration
    of the FIR. It is true that an extra judicial confession is often
E   called a weak type of evidence but we find that the present case
    has certain distinctive features. It is of significance that the
    appellant had made the extra judicial confession to PWS and
    thereafter to PW1 within a very short time and had not
    attempted to run away and he had been handed over to the
F   police by the Village Administrative Officer at about 6 p.m. at
    the time when the FIR had been recorded. PWS also admitted
    in her statement that the appellant was annoyed with the
    deceased as he suspected her of being of low character and
    an embarrassment to him and he had often asked her to mend
    her behaviour to which she had responded that she would live
G   life on her terms and it was not his business to interfere in her
    life. It is true that the appellant's father PW4 and brother-in-law
    PW3 had turned hostile but their evidence would have been
    merely to the effect that the appellant had found fault in the
    deceased's behaviour and in the background of the statement
H
    ARUMUGAM v. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS                       93
  INSPECTOR OF POLICE [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

of PWS that the appellant was indeed annoyed with her mother,        A
the factum of PWs.4 and 3 having turned hostile would not
adversely affect the prosecution story.

      8. The medical evidence far from contradicting the ocular
evidence clearly supports it. It has been submitted by the
                                                                     8
learned counsel for the appellant that body was in a
decomposed state on the 20th March 2000 at 4 p.m. when it
was subjected to the post mortem examination which indicated
that the incident must have happened much before 11 a.m.
There is a basic flaw in this evidence. The Post mortem              C
certificate Ex.Pa shows that the post mortem had commenced
at 4 p.m. and the finding was of a fracture in the body of the
thyroid bone and that the deceased would appear to have died
due to strangulation 27 to 30 hours prior to the commencement
of the post-mortem. In this background, it can, by no stretch of
imagination, be said that the death had occurred prior to 11         D
a.m. on the 19th of March. The cause of death also reveals that
the death had been caused by strangulation with a rope as there
was ligature mark on the neck. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that as per the evidence of
PWS the deceased was a healthy and strong woman and was              E
perhaps physically stronger than the appellant. An inference is,
thus, sought to be drawn that in this situation, it would have
been well nigh impossible for the appellant to have strangulated
her. We absolutely find no merit in this submission as well. It is
clear from the evidence that the appellant had prepared well         F
for the day and had apparently hidden the rope in the field much
earlier. It looks, therefore, that the deceased, though a strong
woman, had been overwhelmed by a sudden attack and
strangulated with the rope, as no other injuries which could
show signs of a struggle, were found on the dead body.               G

     9. For the reasons mentioned above, we endorse the
findings of the High Court and the trial court and dismiss the
appeal.

N.J.                                         Appeal dismissed.       H