Case No. – 83/2010
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. P.N. Prakash J., Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Pugalendhi J.
Date of judgment: 15/07/2016
Relevant Acts/Sections:
- Section120(B) of IPC (Punishmentofcriminalconspiracy)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 201 of IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, or giving false information to screen offender)
- Section 498A of IPC (Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman)
- Section 363 of IPC (Punishment for kidnapping)
- Section 304 B of IPC (Dowry death)
- Section 216 of CrPC (Court may alter charge)
- Section 313 of CrPC (Power to examine the accused)
Backstory
In this case, the FIR was reported on the Pasupathipalayam police station by Chinnaponnu (mother of the victim) on 20.01.2010 of “Women Missing”. The whole story is seemed to be of Dowry’s case. Maniappam (husband of the victim) and Murugeswari (victim) were in love and both got married on 26.11.2006 without the consent of their parents. Rani (mother-in-law of the victim) and Sakthivel (father-in-law of the victim) were totally against it. After marriage, both stayed at the Murugeswari’s mother’s home in KizhakkuVelliVaadi as the parents of Maniappam were against it.
After some time both shifted to the house of Maniappam’s parents but finally, they started to live separately in Thanthondrimalai, Karur District.
The prosecution mentioned that Rani, Sakthivel, and Maniappam has started torching Murugeswari for dowry. When she was not able to fulfill their demands then Rani and Sakthivel planned to murder Murugeswari. Both the parents of Maniappam send him on tour at 09.01.2010 to 10.01.2010 and then they have taken Murugeswari to the forest and killed her.
After the filing of FIR on 20.01.2010 Sakthivel on 21.01.2010 at around 4 pm confessed to the Velusany (Village Administrative Officer) and handed over the Police at 17:30 on 21.01.2010. His confession was recorded by IP Mohandoss on 22.01.2010. After the confession, the body had been searched in the forest. Stone was recovered with the blood spots on it. The body was founded in the mutilated condition, so spot postmortem was done by Dr. Manikandan on 23.01.2010. As death was under 7 years of marriage, enquiry was conducted by Balasubramian, Revenue Division Officer submitted the inquiry report. After that, the case was taken under the IO Manoharan.
The trial court framed 304B under IPC charges but during the questioning in the court accused pleaded not guilty. Then accused were questioned under 313Cr.P.C about the circumstances appearing against them, they again denied. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial court, by judgment,dated15.07.2016, convicted and sentenced the accused.
Postmortem Findings
The body was founded in a mutilated condition, so spot postmortem was done by Dr. Manikandan on 23.01.2010 and the death of Murugeswari has been established via the superimposition test. The remains found there were sent for the examination and the report made by Prabhakaran, who conducted the superimposition Test is mentioned. The skull could have belonged to the female individual seen in the photograph provided. The innominate bone found at the scene of crime belonged to an adult female individual. The femur bone found, belonged to an adult individual. After getting the report from the Forensic Sciences Department, the final opinion was given by Dr.Manikandan, who conducted the autopsy, is the highly decomposed female body would appear to have died of about 7-14 days before the autopsy. The definite cause of death could not be given.
Judgment
Due to the lack of merit of proof and facts, evidence and witness does not inspire the confidence of the court towards the accused.
In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.
And fine amount, if any paid by them shall be refunded. Also, the bail bond executed shall stand determinated.