Holding

The circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to restoration of the murder conviction and dismissal from service.

Summary

P. Muniappan, an assistant professor, was charged with murdering his wife Nagammal after she was found hanging in their kitchen with burn injuries and signs of struggle. The prosecution relied on extensive circumstantial evidence—Muniappan's motive to obtain a divorce and a second marriage, his exclusive presence in the house, inconsistent explanations for sleeping outside, the presence of the mangalsutra with him, and the nature of the injuries—while the defence cited medical opinions suggesting suicide. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, taken together, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that medical evidence could not outweigh the totality of the facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the Sessions Court's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and upheld the dismissal of Muniappan from government service. The judgment also clarified that the service dismissal is lawful in view of the restored conviction.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for murder under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Whether medical opinions indicating suicide can override the cumulative circumstantial evidence.
The validity of dismissing the accused from government service following restoration of the conviction.
The authenticity and relevance of the alleged suicide note.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murderdowry demandcircumstantial evidencesuicide vs homicideIPC 302IPC 201medical evidencesuicide noteservice dismissalCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

A STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
P. MUNIAPPAN

DECEMBER 2, 1997

B [M.M. PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.)

Criniinal law :

Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302 and 201.

C Oiminal T1ial--Grcumsta11tial evidence-Death of wife-Held : Cir-
cumstantial evidence sufficient to conclusively establish guilt of the husband.

Medical Jwi,p111dence-Suicide or homicide-Medical opinion-Doc-
tor expressed two view~ut homicide not completely 111led out by doc-
tors-Held : 1heir evidence must be taken i11 co11junctio11 with all the
D circwnsta11tial evidence on record-In the circumstances of the case, death
was homicidal.

Se1vice Law :

Dismissal-Accused dismissed from se1vice on the grou11d that he
E murdered his wife-Subsequently, accused was acquitted by High
Cowt-State Administrative T1ibunql directed reinstateme11t of accused f al-
lowing his acquittal-But accused was suspended by auth01ities when SLP
against his acquittal was admitted by Supreme Cowt-Supreme Cowt
reversed order of acquittal-Held: Order of dismissal restored.
F The respondent-accused was convicted by the Sessions Court for
offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860. On appeal,
the High Court acC]uitted the respondent. Hence this appeal.

According to the prosecution, the respondent was working as Assis- .
G tant Professor of Mathematics. After his marriage with the deceased, the
respondent was transferred. The respondent, along with his parents, was
making repeated demands for dowry in the shape of household articles. The
respondent had filed a petition for divorce and was repeatedly insisting
upon her consent for his second marriage or divorce. On the fateful day the
body of the deceased was found to be hanging from the roof of her kitchen.
H The accused who was the only other occupant of the household, on the
124
STATE v. P. MUNIAPPAN 125
fateful day, was sleeping separately outside the house. There were burn A
injuries on the body of the deceased which were not in existence on the
previous evening, there being no resist injuries. The hair of the deceased
was disheveled and her dress was disturbed with the jacket and bra being
open. The respondent rushed to the police station without going inside the
house and finding out whether the deceased was dead. The 'thali' (mangal- B
sutra) was not on the neck of the deceased.

The respondent was dismissed from service on the ground that he
was found guilty of committing murder of his wife. The State Administra-
tive Tribunal directed the respondent's reinstatement after he was ac-
quitted by the High Court. But later the authorities suspended the C
respondent when this Court admitted the SLP against the judgment of the
High Court.

The High Court ac11uitted the respondent on the ground that the
deceased 'chose to terminate her life of her own accord perhaps on account
of the torture she had undergone in the hands of her cruel husband' and D
also on the ground that when the doctor had expressed two views, the one
favounible to the accused must be taken into account.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. In this case the following circumstances are con· E
sidered:

(i) The respondent had strong motive to put the deceased -0ut of the
way before the petition for divorce was taken up for hearing. The respon·
dent was repeatedly insisting upon the consent of the deceased for his
second marriage or divorce. F

(ii) The respondent was the only other occupant of the house in
which the deceased met with the unnatural end.

(iii) The respondent's varied explanations for sleeping separately G
outside the house are totally unbelievable.

(iv) The burn injuries on the body of the deceased were not in
existence on the previous evening. There being no resist injuries the only
inference possible in the circumstances is that the respondent caused them
before or after the death of the deceased. H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (v) The disheveled hair and the disturbed dress with the jacket and
bra being open show that there was a struggle before the death of the
deceased. Her feet were touching the floor•. There is no evidence to show that
the cardboard box alleged to have been by the side of the body could have
borne her weight.

B (vi) The conduct of the respondent in rushing to the police station
without going inside the house and finding out whether his wife was alive or
dead is also relevant.

(vii) The 'thali' (mangalsutra) was not on the neck of the deceased but
it was with the respondent. [135-D-H; 136-A]
c
1.2. The above circumstances lead only to one conclusion, that is, the
respondent is guilty. [136-B] ·

Gurbacha11 Singh v. Satpal Si11glz, [1990] 1 SCC 445; Lakhjit Si11gh v.
D State ofPunjab, [1994] Supp.1 SCC 173; Sangarbonia Sree11u v. State ofA.P.,
AJR (1977) SC 3233 and State of Maharashtra v. Aslzok Chotalal Shukla,
[1977] SCC Crl. 1186, referred to.

2. As a general proposition it may be true that when the doctor has
eiq1ressed two views, the one that is favourable to the accused must be taken
E into account. But medical evidence cannot be considered in isolation. After
all, medical opinion is based on inferences drawn from various facts present.
It is not as if homicide is completely ruled out by the doctors. Hence, their
evidence must be taken in conjunction with all the circumstantial evidence
on record. In the instant case, the entire circumstantial evidence points to
homicide only, and the medical evidence is not to the contrary. Therefore,
F there is no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal only.
[136-C-D]
3. As the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Court of Sessions have been restored as against the respon-
dent, the order of dismissal from service passed by the authorities is in
G accordance with law and is restored. [138-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
137 of 1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.91 of the Madras High
H Court in Cr!. A. No. 310 of 1985.
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN[M.SRINIVASAN,J.] 127

WITH A
Criminal Appeal No. 1143/97 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8451-52/97.

T.S. Arunachalam, V.G. Pragasam, S. Balakrishnan (Ms. Revathy
Raghavan) for R.N. Keshwani, A. Mariputham, for M/s. Arputham Aruna
& Co., K.N. Basha, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath and B
Gopal Singh for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. SRINIVASAN, J. The appeal is by the State Government against
the judgment of the High Court of Madras setting aside that of the C
Additional Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquitting the
respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Special
Leave Petition was filed earlier by the brother of the deceased Nagammal
against the same judgment of the High Court. After granting permission
to the petitioner to file the S.L.P ., notice was ordered by this Court in the
S.L.P. and later directed to be tagged on to the above appeal. D
2. The respondent was working as Assistant Professor of Mathe-
matics in Udumalpet College. He married Nagammal on 12.3.76. After
marriage, he- got transferred to a college in Tirupur. Nagammal became an
Assistant Professor in Vellalar College, Erode. Though the respondent was
highly educated, he was insisting on her resigning her job and living with E
him as house wife. Besides, he along with his parents was making repeated
demands for dowry in the shape of household articles. As regards their
married life, the High Court has observed thus :

"It is true that the family life of Nagammal proved to be
miserable. From the beginning there was misunderstanding be- F
t.ween the couple and only for short intermittent periods they had
lived together. Besides the jewels and cash received by him at the
time of marriage, the appellant had been insisting that his wife
should bring household articles necessary to set up a new family
establishment at Tirupur. While the parents of the appellant were G
adamant that her daughter-in- law should resign her job, Nagam-
mal very much liked to be a working woman. It is the appellant
who initiated divorce proceedings against the deceased. A reading
of Ex. P-2 the counter filed by Nagammal would go to show that
even though she was not prepared to quit the job, she was equally
anxious that she should live with her husband happily. Her state- H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A ment in the counter that she had not done any wrong to her
husband and that she begs him to forget and forgive if he had
entertained or found any mistake committed by her reveals her
state of i.1ind."

3. In the petition for divorce referred to by the High Court in the
B above passage, the respondent had stated that his wife left his house on
8.7.76 with her father and alleged that on 14.8.76, her father and brothers
came to his house along with her and by using force and violence took away
with them jewels worth about 35-1/2 sovereigns after attacking him and his
mother. He introduced an innuendo in Para 4 of his petition as follows :
c "The marriage for her was obviously intended to enable the
respondent to go about with greater freedom as a married women."

That discloses the 'cynic' in him.

D 4. That petition was filed on 24.11.1978. His wife Nagammal filed her
counter on 12.3.79 expressing her anxiety to live with him. The matter was
being adjourned number of times on the ground that both counsel were
not ready. On 21.6.82, the Court after noticing that both sides were not
ready adjourned it finally to 8.7.82. On the latter date it was represented
to the Court that the respondent therein had committed suicide. However,
E the petition was dismissed for default as the petitioner therein was absent.
It is necessary to note that though the respondent claimed to have taken
''
her back and started living with her from 12.9.81, he did not withdraw the
petition. According to PW7, he refused to withdraw the petition. This
shows that the respondent had a motive for not withdrawing the petition.
F
5. It is in evidence that though the respondent and his wife resumed
their family life in September 1981, they got separated again in December
1981 and joined sometime in ApriL On 27.6.1982, they came_ to live in the
house in which Nagammal was living till then with her friend and colleague,
PW 6 Vasanthamani. In order to enable the couple to live together, PW 6
G shifted to another house nearby. Within five days thereafter Nagammal's
life met with an unnatural end.

6. On 2.7.1982, Nagammal's body was found to be hanging from the
roof of her kitchen. The High Court has given a clear picture of what
H happened from 1.7.82 till the conclusion of the post mortem in the follow-
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN[M.SRINIVASAN,J.] 129

ing words: A
,. "On 1.7.1982 Thursday Nagammal came to the colleague wear-
ing a new yellow sari and jacket. PW2 Ponnathal was a co-
demonstrator with Nagammal in Triupur Women's College. She
and PW6 Vasanthamani asked her why she was wearing new sari
on that day while it is customary to wear new clothes only on B
Fridays. Nagammal told her friend that her husband had presented
the sari and jacket commemorating her joining Vellalar College
on 1.7.1976. Now he had changed very much and even blessed her
for happy life. She was wearing a new sari on that day as per the
desire of her husband. Nagammal was very happy and in the
evening she returned home from the College wit~ PW-6 Vasan-
c
thamani did not notice any injury on her face.

At about 6.00 PM on 1.7.1982, PW6 Vasanthamani left her
house on account of some personal work and returned at about
8.00 PM. She found that doors and windows of the portion where D
Nagammal was residing were closed from inside. There was no
light. She did not call Nagammal because after a long time the
appellant had come to live with his wife on that day.

PW 11 Kandasamy is the next door neighbour of Nagammal.
On 1.7.1982, after attending a marriage he and his wife Renuka E
came back to their house at about 10.30 PM or 11.00 PM. At that
time nobody was sleeping on the pial of Naggamals's house. PW
10 Tirupathi is also a resident of Ramaswamy Mudaliar compound.
On that night he went to a late show movie and returned to the
house. Since the door of the compound wall was locked he rang
up the call bell and the appellant opened the door. When he went F
to his portion this witness found that the appellant took his bed
on the pial of the house where he was residing with Nagammal.

On the morning of 2.7.1982 all the residents of Ramaswamy
Mudaliar Compound purchased their morning milk as usual. At
G
about 6.30 AM the wife of PW 11 Kandasamy informed her
husband tbat Nagammal did not come out of her house to purchase
milk even though milkman flew his horn. When PW 11 Kandasamy
,if* came out of the house he found the appellant was lying in the pial
of his house. When he asked him why he was sleeping outside, the
appellant told him that because his wife was having her menstrual H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A period he had taken his bed outside. He added that even though
he had knocked the door Nagarnmal did not turn up. PW 11
Kandasamy told the appellant that he could have slept in a room
inside the house. The appellant replied that Nagammal had asked
him to sleep outside. PW 6 Vasanthamani also noticed that Nagarn-
mal did not turn up to get the milk till 6.00 A.M. When she wanted
B to enquire she found the appellant was standing outside the door
of his house. One door alone was opened. PW 6 Vasanthamani
called Nagammal through that window but there was no reply.
Thereafter the residents of that compound gathered there and one
Ranganathan climbed the roof, removed the tiles and found that
c Nagammal was hanging.

PW 8 Chanasekharan is an Assistant Professor of Chikkanna
College Tirupur where the appellant is working. On 2.7.1982 at
about 7.00 AM the appellant came there weeping. He told him
that his wife had died and asked him to inform this to their
D colleagues. PW 8 Chanasekharan went to the house of PW 5
Ramanujulu another professor of the same College and passed on
the message.

On 2.7.1982 at 10.00 AM the appellant came to Tirupur South
E Police Station and lodged Ex. P-44 complaint about the death of
his wife. PW 21 Sub-Inspector received and recorded it as Crime
No. 374 of 1982 of his station under Section 174 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. He prepared Ex. P-45 the printed copy of the
FIR. Then he reached the place of occurrence. The students, staff
F and PW 13 Rajalakshmi, Principal of the Women's College where
Nagammal was working were present. PW 3 Subramaniarn the
Principal of the Chikkana College was also there. The front door
of the house was found bolted from inside. PW 21 Sub Inspector
kicked the door and pushed it with his hands. M.O. 3 the latch of
the bolt from inside gave way and fell down. PW 2 Ponnathal also
G went inside along with PW 21 Sub Inspector. She found Nagammal
hanging in a rope. PW 21 Sub Inspector prepared Ex. P. 47
observation mahazar and Ex. P. 89 rough sketch of the place. He
conducted inquest over the body by calling panchayat from 10.30
PM to 1.30 PM. Ex. P. 46 is the inquest report. He has examined
H the appellant and others at the time of inquest. He also recovered
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN(M.SRINIVASAN,J.] 131

M.0.1 Rope, M.0.2 Ball Point Pen and M.0.3 Latch of the Lock A
and Ex.P. 13 a suicide note dated 1.7.1982 purported to have been
written by Nagammaffrom that place under Ex.P.90 mahazar. Ex.
P. 13 was shown to PW 3 Principal and PW 13 Principal. He also
seized the jewels from the body of Nagammal under Ex. P. 91
mahazar. On the same day he had examined PW 6, PW 10 and B
PW 11.

Thereafter PW 21 Sub Inspector sent the body for post mortem .
through PW 20 Constable with Ex. P: 74 requisition and Ex. P. 77
printed form. PW 16 Dr. Vijayalakshmi commenced the post
mortem in the Government Headquarters hospital, Tirupur at 3.30 C
PM on 2.7.1982. She found that rigor mortis was present in both
lower limbs and passed away in both upper limbs. It was a
moderately nourished body. She found these ante-mortem injuries
on the body.

(1) Burnt area of the skin about 1/2 cm. in diameter on the bridge D
of the nose. Skin charred.

(2) Burnt area of the skin about 1/2 cm. in diameter on the left
temporal region and left cheek present. Skin charred.

(3) Old scar about 2 cm. on the medical aspect of the left ankle. E

(4) Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm with scab formation on the left knee.

(5) A ligature mark which was superficial abciut 2 cm in breadth,
well defined, was seen above the thyroid cartilage running oblique- F
ly upwards interrupted at the back reaching mastroid process
behind the ears. Knot mark was seen on the right side of the neck.
On dis-section, the subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark
was pale and glistening. Rigor mortis present in both lower limbs.
Rigor mortis passed off in both upper limbs. Eye lids were partially
opened on both sides. Tongue protruded between the teeth. Drib- G
bling of Saliva from the right angle of the mouth was present. Jaws
were clenched. Teeth were complete. Abdomen distended. There
was no fracture of ribs. Heart weight 300 grams. Congested Hyoid ·
bone intact. Stomach contained 150 grams of digested food par-
ticulars. Liver_1400 grams congested. Spleen 150 grams congested.
Kidneys 150 grams each congested. Intestine distended with gas. H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Bladder empty. Uterus normal. Weight 70 grams. Ovaries normal
scalip - no fracture. Brain weight 1300 grams - Pale. The viscera
was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. No poison was
detected in the viscera sent. On reviewing the post mortem findings
and Chemical Examiner's report, she gave the opinion that the
deceased wound appear to have died as asphyxia due to suicidal
B hanging between 11.30 PM of 1.7.1982 and 3.30 AM of 2.7.1982.
Ex. P. 48 is the post mortem certificate issued by her. Ex. P. 51 is
the Chemical Examiner's report. After the receipt of the same she
has given her final opinion in Ex. P. 75 and 876 (sic) that the
deceased has died of hanging. According to her external injury
Nos. 1 and 2 in Ex. 48 could have been caused by any hot object
c like cigarette with flame. There is no resisting injuries around those
two injuries."

7. In the first instance, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.
P.C. and investigated. Later on the orders of D.I.G., C.I.D. Madras, the
D CBCID took up the investigation. After examination of witnesses the
charges were got altered to Sec. 306 IPC and 327 IPC. On 4.7. 83, the
respondent was arrested. After examining some more witnesses the charges
were altered to Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC. On completion of investiga-
tion a chargesheet was filed on 6.1.84. The respondent denied the charge
and claimed that she committed suicide. The Court of Sessions found him
E guilty on both counts and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment
for life under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs. 100 under Section 201 IPC. On appeal, the High Court has set
aside the judgment and order of the trial court and acquitted the respon-
dent.
F
8. As stated by the High Court, the case depends upon circumstantia'l
evidence only. ·we have already pointed out that the respondent was never
interested in living with his wife. He was not only making demands for
various household things but also insisting on resigning her job. There is
ample evidence to show that he was treating her cruelly. PW 2, PW 6, PW
G 7 and PW 9 have deposed that the respondent was demanding the consent
of Nagammal either for divorce or for his second marriage. PW 2 and PW
12 have stated that he beat her in public in front of Tip Top lodge and
J eevabai School one day when she was going to the college. PW 6 and PW
12 have stated that Nagammal had told them about his drinking and
H compelliµg her to drink against her will. In this regard, we are eschewing
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN[M.SRINIVASAN,J.] 133

from consideration the evidence of PW 1. PW 9 is a friend of the A
respondent's father. He has deposed that the respondent's mother told him

- that Nagammal should give consent for second marriage of the respondent.
Nothing has been placed on record to discredit the aforesaid witnesses.
The trial court has accepted their evidence and the High Court has not
disbelieved them.
B
9. Apart from the oral evidence, there is documentary evidence in
the shape of letters written by Nagammal, the genuineness of which cannot
be assailed. We are not referring here to the doubtful letters. Exs. P. 27,
P. 29, P30, P. 31 and P. 32 written to PW 7 and Ex.P. 33 written to PW 9
whose genuineness has not been challenged bear ample testimony to the C
extent to which the respondent was prepared to go to make her life
miserable. Ex. P 27 shows that the respondent had taken her signatures on
blank papers. It also shows that he viewed her with suspicion when she
returned one day late from the college. In spite of the fact that all the jewels
and F.D. receipts were entrusted to him in October, 1981, Nagammal was D
sent to her parents' house shortly thereafter. All the above evidence leads
to the conclusion that the respondent did not at anytime have a genuine
desire to live with Nagammal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before us that the
marriage was happy one and there was no hitch between Nagammal and E
the respondent. According to him her parents wanted to enjoy her earnings
and took all steps to keep her away from her husband. The contention is
not acceptable. It goes against the teeth of the evidence referred to by the
High Court which we have already extracted. We have no doubt that the
respondent was responsible for Nagammal's suffering. It is in this back- F
ground the evidence relating to her death should be appreciated.

11. There is no dispute that the death of Nagammal is unnatural.
Admittedly, the respondent was the only other occupant in the house where
her death occurred in the night. Admittedly, the respondent had supper G
with her in the night. According to Ex. P- 44, he slept in the outside
verandah as there was no ventilation inside (Vide Ex. P. 44). In Ex. P-66,
he has stated that Nagammal wanted him to sleep outside as she wanted
to wake up at 4.30 AM next morning, clean the house, wash th,e. clothes
\
and go to temple and that he could sleep undisturbed till 7.00 AM. The
third version is in the written statement filed by him under Section 3B Cr. H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A P.C.. It is stated thus : "After husband and wife relations I used to come
outside and sleep for want of air and my wife used to sleep inside by bolting
the door from inside". PW 11 has deposed that the respondent told him
because Nagammal was in her periods she told him to sleep outside. In the
oral examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. a specific question was put to
him that he told PW 11 that Nagammal wanted him to sleep outside. The
B respondent simply denied it. Thus the respondent has given different
explanations for his sleeping outside separately within a few days after
joining his wife.

12. The respondent has given a reason for Nagammal committing
C suicide. According to him she was having acute stomach pain during her
period and during coitus. This cannot be true on the face of it because of ·
her written statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. There is no evidence to
support his version excepting his own statement. Reliance is placed on Ex.
P. 35 issued by one Dr. S. Balakrishnan on 3.6.1982 that she had 'pelvic
D infection' since the previous day. The doctor has not been examined. The
colleagues of Nagammal have not heard of her stomach pain. The post
mortem examination of the body of the deceased has not disclosed any
infection. According to P-35, the doctor advised her to take rest for three
weeks only. There is no evidence to show that she was taking any medicine.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Nagammal was
E suffering from such acute pain or for that matter any other ailment which
could goad her to commit suicide.

13. According to the High Court, the mental and physical torture
endured by Nagammal in the hands of her husband made her desperate to
F put an end to her life. The said inference is wholly unreasonable and
unwarranted. The High Court has after referring to the circumstances that
Nagammal accepted a lower post after resigning a higher post in order to
facilitate her living with her husband and that the evidence of PWs 2 and
6 proved that Nagammal was very happy on 1.7.1982 observed : "But we
do not know what transpired between the husband and wife after 6.00 PM
G on that day". The High Court has completely overlooked the letters written
by Nagammal which prove clearly that Nagammal was not such a weak-
minded person to commit suicide on a sudden provocation of which we
have no evidence whatever. The evidence makes out clearly that Nagammal
had a strong mental frame and was keen on living with her husband. The
H sequence of events does not lead to any inference that something happened
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN[M.SRINIVASAN,J.) 135
during the night which made her commit suicide immediately. A
14. If it is a case of suicide, there is no explanation for burn injuries.
The High Court has held that she 'chose to terminate her life of her own
accord perhaps on account of the torture she had undergone in the hands
of her cruel husband'. Does the High Court refer here to torture before
27.6.1982 or on 1.7.1982? There is no doubt that the torture or the conduct B
of the respondent prior to 27.6.1982 could not have persuaded Nagammal
to commit suicide. Thus the cause of her death could have sprung up only
on 1.7.1982 night. According to the respondent he had coitus with her and
she wanted to get up early in the morning, clean the house and go to the
temple. Obviously she had no reason to commit suicide. It is in that back C
ground, the following circumstances in the case should be considered :

(I) The respondent had strong motive to put her out of the way
- before the petition for divorce fixed for 8.7.82 finally was taken up for
hearing. The respondent had developed hatred towards her and drove her
out of the house (Vide Ex. P-2 Para 5). He refused to withdraw the petition D
for divorce though she came to live with him. He was repeatedly insisting
upon her consent for his second marriage or divorce.

(II) He was the only other occupant of the house in which she met
with the unnatural end.
E
(III) His varied explanations for sleeping separately outside the
house are totally unbelievable.

(IV) The burn injuries on the body of Nagammal which were not in
existence on the evening of 1.7.1982. There being no resist injuries the only
inference possible in the circumstances is that the respondent caused them F
before or after her death.

.... (V) The dishevelled hair and the disturbed dress with the jacket and
bra being open show that there was a struggle before her death. The
witnesses who saw her body have deposed that the saree was just put G
around the body. Her feet were touching the floor. There is no evidence
to show that the cardboard box alleged to have been by the side of the
body could have borne her weight.

(VI) The conduct of the respondent in rushing to the police station
without going inside the house and finding out whether she was dead is H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A also relevant.
(VII) The 'thali' (mangalsutra) was not on the neck of the deceased
but it was with the respondent.

The above circumstances lead to only one conclusion, that is, the respon-
B · dent is guilty. We have taken care to omit disputed pieces of evidence.
Unfortunately, the High Court has failed to consider the above evidence
on record before upsetting the judgment of the trial court and thus its
judgment is vitiated.

15. The High Court has observed that when the doctor has expressed
C two views, the one that is favourable to the accused must be taken into
account. As a general proposition, it may be true. But medical evidence
cannot be considered in isolation. After all, medical opinion is based on
inferences drawn from various facts present. It is not as if homicide is
completely ruled out by the doctors. Hence, their evidence must be taken
D in conjunction with all the circumstantial evidence on record. The entire
circumstantial evidence points to homicide only, and ·the medical evidence
is not to the contrary. Thus we have no doubt that the death of Nagammal
-
was homicidal only.

16. The trial court has referred to Ex. P-13, the slip of paper
E purporting to be a 'suicide note' and held that it was fabricated by the
accused. The High Court has opined that the real note has been suppressed
and another has been substituted in its place after C.B.C.l.D. Police came 1
into the picture. There is no support in the evidence for this opinion.
Obviously, the opinion is based on the statement of PW 1 that the writing
F in the note was in red ink and the signature was in blue ink but in Ex. P-13
the writing as well as the signature are in blue ink. PW 1 has stated that
the Sub-Inspector of Police refused to show the note to him when he asked
for it. PW 1 claims to have been told by his father that the writing was in
light red colour ink and the signature was in blue ink. Hence his evidence
is of no use. If the original note was in two different inks, that itself could
G b9 a circumstance against the accused as it would show that the writing
-
was by one person and the signature was by another. On the other hand,
if the writing and the signature were by the same person but in two
different inks it would mean that the writing and signature were at a
different times. There was only one ball point pen at the spot. We have
H referred to the above aspects only to show that a definite conclusion that
STATE v. P.MUNIAPPAN[M.SRINIVASAN,J.) 137

there was a substitution of the note is not possible. However, we are A
prepared to omit Ex. P-13 completely from consideration in this case. The
other evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused on
both counts.

17. As we have rested our conclusion on the evidence on record, it
is unnecessary to refer to S.113-A of the Evidence Act or the judgments B
in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 445 and
Lakhjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, (1994) Supp. 1 S.C.C. 173
relied on by learned counsel for the appellant. Nor is it necessary to advert
to the judgments in Sangarbonia Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR (1997) SC
3233 and State of Maharashtra v. Aslwk Clwtalal Shukla, (1997) S.C.C. Crl. C
1186 cited by learned counsel for the respondents.

18. Thus we hold that the judgment and order of the trial court are
correct. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set
aside. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are restored. D
The bail stands cancelled and respondent, shall be taken into custody
forthwith.

CRIMINAL APPEAL'NO. 1143 ..... OF 1997

Leave granted, Appeal is allowed on the above terms. E

Civil Appeal Nos. 8451-52 of 1997.

Leave granted.
F
The respondent was working as Assistant Professor o(Mathematics
in a Government college. When he was found guilty of committing murder
of his wife by the Additional Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, he was
dismissed from service under Rule 17 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(C & A) Rules. After the High Court allowed his appeal against the
judgment of the Additional Principal Sessions Judge, he made a G
representation to reinstate him in seuice. As there was no response he
filed an O.A. No. 1748 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, Madras. By order dated 16.7.1982, the Tribunal allowed his
application and directed his re-instatement with all attendant benefits
within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The authorities H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A filed an application M.A. 3152 of 1993 for condoning delay of 410 days in
filing a review application. When this Court granted Special Leave and
directed issue of bailable warrants, the respondent was suspended from
service. The order of suspension was challenged by the respondent in O.A.
No. 1118 of 1~94. The application for condonation of delay and 0.A. No.
B 1118/94 were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed of by common
order dated 19.4.1994. The Tribunal dismissed the application for
condonation of delay <1nd allowed the application filed by the respondent
against the order of suspension.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the State Government has preferred
C this application for leave. As the above criminal appeals are allowed and
the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of Sessions have been
restored as against the respondent, the order of dismissal from service
passed by the authorities is in accordance with law and has to be restored.
Consequently, the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative
D Tribunal on 16.7.1992 and 19.4.1994 are set aside. The order of the Govt.
of Tamil Nadu in G.O.M.S. No. 459, Education Department dated
27.4.1989 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeals allowed.