KUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                         [2013] 6 S.C.R. 434


A                               KUMAR
                                   v.
                       STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2009)
                             MAY 9, 2013
B
             [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

           Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 302, 302 rlw 201 and 506 -
     Rape followed by double murder - Allegation that appellant
C    struck a blow with 'poorikatai' on the head of his sister-in-Jaw
     due to which she fell unconscious and then he had sexual
    intercourse with her and thereafter, he attacked her 13 months'
     old daughter on which she also became unconscious -
    Appellant-accused then allegedly caused death of his sister-
D   in-Jaw and her daughter by pouring kerosene and setting them
    t;Jn fire - Conviction of appellant-accused alongwith sentence
     of life imprisonment - Justification - Held: Justified - Extra-
    judicial confession by appellant to PW-2 rightly accepted by
     trial Court as same was within the parameters of law and
E   withstood the test of reasonableness and credibility - Evidence
    of PWs 2 & 3 made it clear that appellant had the motive,
    namely, he had a lustful eye towards his sister-in-law, which
     was proved beyond doubt - Since she refused to accede to
    the wish of appellant, he forcibly raped her - Evidence of PWs
F    1,2 and 3 amply proved various circumstances as pleaded
    by the prosecution - Prosecution established all the links
    including the fisting of the child and laying her nearby the
    sister-in-law of appellant when she became unconscious and
    thereafter, buming both of them to death by pouring kerosene
G   - Likewise, prosecution also proved the other circumstances,
    namely, threat to PW-2 with dire consequences and making
    her to speak to PW-1 over phone impersonating the
    deceased, to make it a suicidal case - Not only appellant had
    the knowledge that he had committed the heinous crime but

H                                 434
          KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                     435


he also caused disappearance of evidence and had the A
intention to screen the offence by burning the body of his
sister-in-law and her child - Reports submitted by the
Scientific Officers, viz., PWs 11and16, coupled with the post
mortem certificate and the evidence of Medical Officer,
established beyond doubt that it was a clear case of murder.... B
- Overall assessment of evidence of prosecution witnesses
clearly established the circumstances against the accused in
a cogent manner.

    Evidence - Confession - Extra-judicial Confession - When
can be relied upon - Held: If extra-judicial confession is         C
voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied upon
along with other materials.

     The prosecution case was that the appellant-accused
intended to rape his sister-in-law and, on the fateful day,        D
when she was alone, he attempted to have sexual
intercourse with her; that when she resisted him, he
struck a blow with 'poorikatai' on her head due to which
she fell unconscious. Taking undue advantage of her
condition, the appellant-accused had sexual intercourse            E
with her. Immediately thereafter, he attacked her 13
months' old daughter on account of which she also
became unconscious. The further case of the prosecution
was that the appellant-accused with the intention of
causing disappearance of evidence and in order to show             F
it a suicidal case, caused death of his sister-in-law and
her daughter by pouring kerosene and set them on fire.
The appellant-accused arranged kerosene for the same
from PW-2 • a neighbour, on the pretext of cleaning a
machine. He also narrated the whole incident to her and            G
even threatened her to give a call to PW-1 (the brother of
the deceased) impersonating the deceased, which she
did.

    The trial court, primarily placing reliance upon the
extra-judicial confession made to PW-2, convicted the              H
    436    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 6 S.C.R.

A appellant-accused under Sections 376, 302, 302 read
  with 201 and 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
  imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the
  conviction and sentence, and therefore the instant
  appeal.
B
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The law is well settled as to what extent
  extra-judicial confession can be relied on. If the same is
  voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied
C upon along with other materials. Extra-judicial confession
  Is a weak type of evidence and depends upon the nature
  of circumstances llke the time when the confession was
  made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to
  such a confession. [Para 8] [446-C-D]
D
        1.2. In the instant case, extra-judicial confession was
  made by the accused-appellant to PW-2. The trial Court
  as well as the High Court rightly relied on the evidence
  of PW-2. Her statement before the Court and confession
E made by the accused before PW-28, the District Revenue
  (;)fflcer corroborates each other. Even in cross-
  examination, PW-2 reiterated what she deposed in the
  examination-in-chief. There is no reason to disbelieve her
  testimony, on the other other hand, the same is
  acceptable if other circumstances are considered. [Paras
F 9, 10] [446-E; 448-8-C]
       2. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. In his
  evidence, he deposed that the deceased called him over
  phone and asked him to come with money within an
G hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide. Though the
  appellant raised a doubt about the phone call by showing
  the telephone number and other details, if one considers
  the evidence of PW-1 along with the evidence of PW-2,
  there is no reason to doubt the veracity of their evidence.
H PW-3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. In her evidence,
         KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                  437


she also stated that PW-1 called her and stated about the     A
demand raised by the deceased over phone. On analysis
of the evidence of PW-3 with that of PWs 1 and 2, it is
clear that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the
evidence of PW-1 in respect of the phone call by PW-2
impersonating the deceased, hence, all the three              B
witnesses support the case put forth by the prosecution.
[Paras 13, 14] [448-F-G; 449-B, D]

     3. As regards the offence under Section 376 of IPC
followed by death is concerned, in the extra-judicial         C
confession made by the accused to PW-2, he had stated
that when he hugged the deceased, she refused to
accept and wanted to wriggle out of it, hence, he hit on
her head with 'poorikattai' (M.O. 11) due to which she fell
unconscious. The wound certificate (Exh. P-25) supports
the case of the prosecution viz., that the simple injury      D
might be due to finger nail scratch. In addition, the
Chemical Report (Exh. P-8) stating that the brief (M.O. 15)
contained semen also supports the claim made by the
prosecution about the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
No doubt, there is no medical evidence about the same,        E
however, PW-24, the doctor who conducted the autopsy,
had stated that due to extensive burns over the front part
of the body, he could not notice any symptom for the
commission of offence of rape. In view of the explanation
offered and also if one considers the evidence of PW-24,      F
there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the
prosecution that the accused committed rape before
setting fire on her body. [Para 15] [449-F-H; 450-A]

     4. The prosecution has also proved the motive from       G
the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. When PW-2 explained about
the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, she
informed the court that the accused had an eye .>ver the
deceased and since nobody was in the house on the
date and time of the incident, he intends to utilize the      H
    438     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A same. Since the deceased refused to accede to his wish,
  he forcibly committed the offence of rape by pushing her
  down. This aspect has been corroborated by PW-3 in
  categorical terms. Apart from this, PW-3, in her evidence
  also explained the complaint made by the deceased about
B th• conduct of the accused and his behaviour towards
  he;r. PW-3 has also stated that when the deceased visited
  her house on the last occasion, she narrated the lust of
  the accused and requested her not to reveal the same to
  anyone including her brother viz., husband of PW-3.
c [Paras 16, 17] [450-8-E]
          5. If the deceased had committed suicide, naturally,
    she would have poured kerosene on her head which
    would have spread on all over her body and on setting
    fire, all parts of the body would have got burnt. The post
D   mortem report shows differently. In the Post Mortem
    Certificate (Ex. P-46) extensive second degree burns
    were found on the front side of the whole body except
    the crown of head, the back head, backside, buttocks and
    the bottom of the foot. The way in which she was lying
E   C)n the floor and the throwing of can containing Kerosene
    in the house itself undoubtedly establish that the
    deceased had not committed suicide and it is a case of
    murder. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 amply prove
    various circumstances as pleaded by the prosecution.
F   The prosecution has established all the links including
    the fisting of child and laying her nearby the deceased
    when she became unconscious and thereafter, burning
    both of them to death by pouring kerosene. Likewise, the
    prosecution has also proved the other circumstances,
G   namely, threat to PW-2 with dire consequences and
    making her to speak to PW-1 over phone impersonating
    the deceased, to make it a suicidal case. As rightly
    analysed by the trial Court and the High Court, the
    deceased has not committed suicide but it is a case of
H   homicide by the accused and the pro:;ecution has
        KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                 439


established the offence under Section 302 IPC. Not only A
the accused had the knowledge that he had committed
the heinous crime but he also caused disappearance of
evidence and had the intention to screen the offence by
burning the body of the deceased and her child, hence,
the prosecution has also established the offence under B
Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC. [Para 18] [450-F-
H; 451-A-E]

     6. The trial Court rightly found the appellant-accused
guilty of all the charges and passed the order of
conviction and imposed the appropriate sentence. The C
reports submitted by the Scientific Officers, viz., PWs 11
and 16, coupled with the post mortem certificate and the
evidence of the Medical Officer, establish beyond doubt
that this is a clear case of murder. [Para 19] [451-F]
                                                            D
     7. The extra-judicial confession made to PW-2 has
been rightly accepted by the trial Court as the same is
within the parameters of law and withstood the test of
reasonableness and credibility. An overall assessment of
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly E
establishes the circumstances against the accused in a
cogent manner. It is seen from the evidence of PWs 2 &
3 that the appellant-accused had the motive, namely, he
had a lustful eye towards his sister-in-law, which had
been proved beyond doubt. [Para 20] [451-G-H; 452-A]        F

    8. In justice delivery system, Courts are conscious
and mindful of the proportion between the rigor of
offence committed and the penalty imposed as also its
impact on society in general and the victim of the crime
in particular. Social impact of the crime where it relates G
to offences against women cannot be lost sight of and
per se requires exemplary treatment. Public abhorrence
of the crime needs reflection through imposition of
appropriate sentence by the court. Though ~he trial Court
imposed life imprisonment which was upheld by the High H
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.

A   Court in view of the gruesome act of rape followed by
    d:ouble murder, this Court is of the view that the
    authorities having power of remission have to be
    conscious and cannot pass any such order of remission
    lightly without adhering to various principles enunciated
B   by this Court. [Para 21] [452-B-D]

         Swami Shraddananda (2) @ Murli Manohar Mishra vs.
    State of Kamataka (2008) 13 SCC 767: 2008 (11) SCR 93;
    Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 (6)
    SCALE 219 • relied on.
c
                          Case Law Reference:
          2008 (11) SCR 93         relied on             Para 21
          2013 (6) SCALE 219       relied on             Para 21
D
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1450 of 2009.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2008 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 792
E   of 2007.

       V. Krishnamurthy, Prasanth P., V. Vasudevan, T. Harish
    Kumar, K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya for the Appellant.

       Subramonium Prasad, AAG, M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha
F   Kumaran, Sasikala for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against
    the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High
G   Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 792 of
    2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
    the appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the order
    of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2007 passed by the
    1st Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in Sessions Case No.
H 56 .of 20C14.
          KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                       441
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     2. Brief facts:                                                 A

     (a) The marriage of Vijayalakshmi (the deceased) and
Thiruselvam was solemnized on 06.09.2001 at Murugan Nagar,
Zerinakadu, Yercaud, Tamil Nadu. After the marriage, she was
staying at her matrimonial home in a joint family consisting of      8
her husband, Krishnan (father-in-law), Chellammal (mother-in-
law) and Kumar-the appellant/accused, brother-in-law of the
deceased. After one year of the marriage, a baby girl was born
out of the said wedlock.

     (b) It is the case of the prosecution that after the birth of   C
the girl child, the deceased was harassed and tortured by her
husband and in-laws to bring money from her parents in order
to take care of the baby. On several occasions, she was forced
and even harassed to arrange money from her paternal home
in order to fulfill the demand of dowry. In addition to this, her    D
brother-in-law, Kumar (the appellant-accused) had bad
intentions towards her.

      (c) On 15.08.2003, at 2.00 p.m., the deceased called her
brother - Chandrabose (PW-1) over phone and informed him             E
that her husband and in-laws are torturing her for the money and
asked him to bring the money immediately, within one hour,
failing which, she would kill her and her child. Since she
disconnected the phone immediately, PW-1 tried to contact her
but he could not get it. Thereafter, he spoke to his sister-in-law
                                                                     F
- Mariyayi (PW-3) about the same and asked her to visit the
house of the deceased. At 3.30 p.m., PW-1 got a call from his
elder brother that Vijayalakshmi and her baby died due to burn
injuries. On the same day, PW-1 registered a complaint with
the Yercaud Police Station which was registered as Crime No.
350/2003 under Sections 498A and 3048 of the Indian Penal            G
Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). Taking note of the death of a 13
months' old baby along with her mother by burning in the
matrimonial home, the Superintendent of Police, Yercaud,
himself took up the investigation. After one week of the said
incident, it was published in the newspapers that the deceased       H
    442      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   had rwt committed suicide but it was a case of murder.

       (d) During investigation, the role of the appellant-accused
  came to light whose intention was to rape her sister-in-law and,
  on the fateful day, when she was alone, he even attempted to
  have sexual intercourse with her. When Vijayalakshmi resisted
8
  him, he struck a blow with 'poorikatai' on her head due to which
  she fell unconscious. Taking undue advantage of her condition,
  the appellant-accused had sexual intercourse with her.
  Immediately thereafter, he attacked her 13 months' old baby-
C Srimathi who was playing nearby by giving a forcible punch on
  her face on account of which she also became unconscious.

       (e) It was further revealed during investigation that the
  appellant-accused with the intention of causing disappearance
  of evidence and in order to show it a suicidal case, caused
D death of Vijayalakshmi and her daughter by pouring kerosene
  and set them on fire. It was also revealed during investigation
  that the appellant-accused arranged kerosene for the same
  from one Selvi (PW-2) - the neighbour, on the pretext of cleaning
  a machine. He also narrated the whole incident to her and even
E threatened her to give a call to PW-1 impersonating the
  deceased, which she did.

      (f) On the basis of the above said investigation, a
  chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein under
  Sections 376, 302, 302/201 and 506(2) of IPC and the case
F was committed to the court of Isl Additional Sessions Judge,
  Salem which was numbered as Sessions Case No.56 of 2004.

       (g) The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated
  30.07.2007, convicted the appellant-accused under Sections
G 376, 302, 302 read with 201 and 506 IPC and sentenced him
  to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 7 years along with a
  fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year for
  the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. He was further
  sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of
H Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year for the
           KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                         443
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

offence under Section 302 of IPC. Further, he was sentenced            A
to undergo RI for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 1 month for the offence under
Section 201 of IPC for screening the evidence of rape and
murder. He was further sentenced to RI for 7 years along with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one year for      B
the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC.

    (h) Challenging the said order, the appellant-accused filed
Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2007 before the High Court. By
impugned judgment dated 23.04.2008, the High Court
dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction and             C
sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the trial Court.

      (i) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-accused has
filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
                                                                       D
     3. Heard Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for
the appellant-accused and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned
Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Contentions:
                                                                       E
    4. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for the
appellant made the following contentions:

      (i) At the foremost, the conviction solely based on the extra-
jud icial confession made to one Selvi (PW-2) cannot be
                                                                       F
sustained since she had not disclosed the same at the earliest
point of time.

     (ii) The reliance placed on the complaint (Exh. P-1) is also
not sustainable inasmuch as in the said complaint, PW-1 had
not uttered anything about the cor:iduct of the appellant-accused      G
towards the deceased.

     (iii) The inconsistent stand of PW-3, particularly, at the time
of incident and after a gap of 2 months, makes her evidence
wholly unreliable.
                                                                       H
    444     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A        (iv) Inasmuch as PWs 4-8 were examined after a period
    of 10-15 days, their statements are not reliable.

         (v) Inasmuch as the evidence clearly shows that it is a case
    of suicidal death, the conviction and sentence under Section
    302 of IPC is not maintainable.
8
         (vi) Finally, the offence under Sections 376, 302 and 302
    read with 201 IPC has not been proved with the aid of medical
    evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction
    and sentence under these sections have to be set aside.
c
        5. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate
    General for the Respondent-State while rebutting the above
    contentions submitted as under:-

       (i) The extra-judicial confession made to PW-2, who is a
D neighbour, is reliable and acceptable since in her statement
  made to K. Palanivelu, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-
  $0), she stated that she was threatened by the accused that
  he would do away with her in the same manner like that of the
  deceased if she reveals the same to anyone and also made
E her to impersonate as the deceased over phone to PW-1. It is
  further submitted that it is clear from the above that the accused
  threatened her to death due to which she did not disclose
  anything to Thiru P. Kannuchamy (PW-17) on 16.08.2003, the
  very next day after the alleged incident. Hence, the same would
F not make her evidence unreliable as she is the only witness who
  saw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before the
  incident and in the hall after they were burnt to death.

       (ii) With regard to the contention that PW-1 had not uttered
G anything about the conduct of the appellant in the complaint,
  learned AAG submitted that since PW-1 was informed by PW-
  3 about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased only
  after the publication of article in the newspapers that the death
  of the deceased is not suicide but homicide, hence the same
H was not mentioned in his complaint (Exh. P-1). The evidence
           KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                        445
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of PW-3 is more dependable since on seeing the article in the          A
newspaper that the death was homicidal, she recalled the
statement made by the deceased with regard to the conduct
of the accused 15 days prior to the date of occurrence and the
gap of 2 months does not render her evidence unreliable.
                                                                       B
    (iii) With regard to the contention regarding delay in
examining PWs 4-8, learned MG submitted that PWs 4-8 only
spoke about the movement of the accused just prior to the
occurrence, immediately thereafter and at the place of
occurrence. Inasmuch as they are not eye-witnesses, even the
delay in examining them would not make their evidence                  C
unbelievable.
     (iv) As regards the claim that it is a case of suicide, learned
AAG submitted that while explaining the extra-judicial
confession made by the accused, PW-2 had explained that the            o
accused had an eye over the deceased and since the
deceased refused to heed his wish, he hit the deceased on her
head and when she fell unconscious, the accused committed
rape on her. PW-2 also witnessed the deceased and her child
lying in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they     E
were burnt to death. He further submitted that in view of the
above, it clearly establishes the motive under Section 302 and
376 IPC.
     (v) In reply to the contention regarding deposition of more
carbon particles in the kitchen in comparison to the hall              F
supported with the fact that the tiles were removed from the
kitchen only and also the evidence of the brother of the
deceased (PW-1) who had stated that the deceased called him
and stated that she would commit suicide if he did not reach
her place within one hour with money, it was. submitted by             G
learned AAG that in view of the deposition of PW-2 coupled
with the certificate (Exh. P-25) issued by Dr. R. Vallimayagam
(PW-20), who examined the accused and the evidence of Tmt.
Kamalatchi (PW-11), the Scientific Officer, who examined the
brief (M.O. 15) and detected semen in it as per the Chemical           H
    446      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   Rep:ort (Exh. P-8), there is no doubt about the role of the
    appellant-accused in committing rape and double murder.
         6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
    also perused all the materials relied on by both sides.
B Discussion:
          7. Inasmuch as the extra-judicial confession made by the
    accused is a material evidence for prosecution, let us discuss
    its reliability and acceptability.
C        8. The law is well settled as to what extent extra-judicial
    confession can be relied on. If the same is voluntary and made
    in a fit state of mind, it can be relied upon along with other
    materials. It is true that the extra-judicial confession is a weak
    type of evidence and depends upon the nature of
o   circumstances like the time when the confession was made
    and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a
    confession.
         9. The extra-judicial confession was made by the accused
    to Selvi (PW-2), who is his neighbour. In her evidence, she
E   deposed that she is residing near the Krishnan's House in
    Murugan Nagar, Yercaud. At the relevant time, she was working
    as an Assistant of Nutritious Meal in Mungagambadi School.
    According to her, she knows the deceased Vijayalakshmi and
    her child as her neighbours. She also identified the accused
F   in the Court. She narrated that on 15.08.2003, when she was
    having lunch at her home, the appellant-accused called her and
    asked for some Kerosene for cleaning the machine. As
    requested, she handed over the Kerosene available in a 10 litre
    can. Within 1O minutes, when she came out of the house, she
G   saw the appellant-accused standing on the rear side of the
    house who asked her to come by action. When she went there,
    the accused called her inside the house where she saw that
    Vijayalakshmi and her daughter lying without any sign of life.
    After seeing this, she asked the appellant-accused ''You sinner.
H   What did you do to her?" The appellant-accused told her not
           KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                        447
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to shout. Thereafter, he told her that he had an eye on his sister-    A
in-law. She further deposed that the accused informed her that
since nobody was there in the house, he embraced her but
when she did not agree for the same, he took a wooden ruler
used to make 'poorikattai' and gave a blow on her head due
to which, she became unconscious and fell down. Thereafter,            B
he raped her and he also informed PW-2 that he will make it
as if she had committed suicide. He also said that he punched
the baby on her nose who was playing nearby and when the
child cried, he put the child also near to his sister-in-law.
Thereafter, the accused squashed her neck and threatened her           C
not to tell this matter to anyone, otherwise, he will kill her also.
On his direction, PW-2 made a call to the elder brother of the
deceased over phone. In her evidence, she further deposed that
at about 2.00 p.m., she ran from there and again returned to
their house at 4.00 p.m. and saw that lot of persons were
gathered at the spot. She further noticed from the kitc;hen that       D
Vijayalakshmi and her child were burnt and lying in the hall. On
 16.08.2003, she was examined by Revenue Divisional Officer
but she did not depose much to him. On 17.08.2003, when she
was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she
deposed all the details to him. Similarly, on 19.08.2003 and           E
25.08.2003, she was examined by Superintendent of Police
and the Magistrate Court respectively and she deposed the
entire truth before them.
     10. The analysis of the evidence of PW-2 clearly shows            F
that the extra judicial confession was made by the accused to
her, who is a neighbour. It is also clear from her evidence that
the accused had taken kerosene from her house stating that it
was required for cleaning the machine and thereafter, when
PW-2 came out, she was called by the accused to his house              G
where she witnessed the deceased and her child lying
unconscious in the kitchen. When she questioned the accused
about the same, he. admitted to her about the occurrence and
compelled her to speak to PW-1 impersonating the deceased
by threatening her. It is also clear that among all the prosecution
                                                                       H
    448     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A witnesses, PW-2 was the only witness who saw the deceased
  and her child in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall
  after they were burnt. It is only PW-2 before whom the accused
  had confessed about the commission of offence under Section
  376, The trial Court as well as the High Court rightly relied on
B the evidence of PW-2. Her statement before the Court and
  confession made by the accused before Shri T.P. Rajesh (PW-
  28), the District Revenue Officer corroborates each other. Even
  in Gross-examination, PW-2 reiterated what she deposed in the
  examination-in-chief. There is no reason to disbelieve her
C testimony, on the other other hand, the same is acceptable if
  we consider other circumstances.
         11. Apart from the extra-judicial confession made to PW-
    2 by the accused, who is a neighbour, the prosecution heavily
    relied on various circumstantial evidence.
D
        12. While discussing the evidence of PW-2, this Court
  noted her statement that the accused threatened her to call the
  brother of the deceased (PW-1) as if that the deceased was
  calling him by putting her saree on the receiver of the phone.
  In fact, PW-2 spoke to PW-1 as threatened by the accused that
E she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within
  one hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.
       13. Now, it is useful to refer the evidence of PW-1. He is
  the brother of the deceased and residing in Mettupalayam and
F at the relevant time, he was working as a clerk in Kerala
  Transport Office. It is also informed by him that the accused is
  brother of his younger sister's husband. In his evidence, he
  deposed that the deceased called him over phone and asked
  him to come with money within an hour, otherwise, she would
G commit suicide. Thereafter, PW-1 contacted at his brother's
  residence as well as his sister-in-law (PW-3) and informed
  about the demand made by the deceased over phone and
  asked PW-3 to visit the place of the deceased and apprise him.
  His evidence further disclosed that he hurriedly reached his
  sister's house around 7 p.m., where he saw that his younger
H
          KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                        449
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
sister and the child were burnt to death and were lying on the       A
back of the floor. Thereafter, he along with his elder brothers-
Thangavelu and Balasubramaniam, went to Yercaud Police
Station and informed the incident. Though Mr. Krishnamurhty,
learned senior counsel for the appellant raised a doubt about
the phone call by showing the telephone number and other             B
details, if we consider the evidence of PW-1 along with the
evidence of PW-2, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of
their evidence.
     14. One Mariyayi was examined as PW-3. She is a
resident of Vellakkadai, Yerkaud, Tamil Nadu. Her husband is         C
running a grocery shop. According to her, the deceased was
her sister-in-law. She narrated about the marriage of her sister-
in-law and the child born to her. In her evidence, she also stated
that PW-1 called her and stated about the demand raised by
the deceased over phone. We have analysed the evidence of            D
PW-3 with that of PWs 1 and 2 and we are satisfied that the
evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 in
respect of the phone call by PW-2 impersonating the deceased,
hence, all the three witnesses support the case put forth by the
prosecution.                                                         E
      15. As regards the offence under Section 376 of IPC
 followed by death is concerned, in the extra-judicial confession
 made by the accused to PW-2, he had stated that when he
 hugged the deceased, she refused to accept and wanted to
 wriggle out of it, hence, he hit on her head with 'poorikattai'     F
 (M.O. 11) due to which she fell unconscious. The wound
certificate (Exh. P-25) supports the case of the prosecution viz.,
that the simple injury might be due to finger nail scratch. In
addition, the Chemical Report (Exh. P-8) stating that the brief
(M.O. 15) contained semen also supports the claim made by            G
the prosecution about the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
No doubt, there is no medical evidence about the same,
however, Shri S. Neelamegan (PW-24), the doctor who
conducted the autopsy, had stated that due to extensive burns
over the front part of the body, he could not noticed any            H
    450      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   symptom for the commission of offence of rape. In view of the
    el(planation offered and also if we consider the evidence of PW-
    24, there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the prosecution
    that the accused committed rape before setting fire on her body.
          16. The prosecution has also proved the motive from the
8 evidence of PWs 2 and 3. When PW-2 explained about the
  ~xtra-judicial confession made by the accused, she informed
  the court that the accused had an eye over the deceased and
  since nobody was in the house on the date and time of the
  Incident, he intends to utilize the same. Since the deceased
C refused to accede to his wish, he forcibly committed the
  offence of rape by pushing her down. This aspect has been
  corroborated by PW-3 in categorical terms.
       17. Apart from this, PW-3, in her evidence also explained
0 the complaint made by the deceased about the conduct of the
  accused and his behaviour towards her. PW-3 has also stated
  that when the deceased visited her house on the last occasion,
  she narrated the lust of the accused and requested her not to
  reveal the same to anyone including her brother viz., husband
E of PW-3. PW-3 has also stated in her evidence that when her
  husband came to know about this he scolded her, in fact, he
  slapped her for not informing the same at the appropriate time.
       18. Dr. S. Neelamegam (PW-24), the Doctor who
  conducted the post mortem had deposed that the back side
F of the body, crown of the head and the soles were not burnt
  and, therefore, there is no possibility of committing suicide. It
  is noted in the Post Mortem Certificate (Ex. P-46) that extensive
  second degree burns were found on the front side of the whole
  body except the crown of head, the back head, backside,
G buttocks and the bottom of the foot. As rightly pointed out by
  the prosecution that if the deceased had committed suicide,
  naturally, she would have poured kerosene on her head which
  would have spread on all over her body and on setting fire, all
  parts of the body would have got burnt. As pointed out above,
H the post mortem report shows differently. The way in which she
          KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                      451
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
was lying on the floor and the throwing of can containing          A
Kerosene in the house itself undoubtedly establish that the
deceased had not committed suicide and ii is a case of murder.
The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 amply prove various
circumstances as pleaded by the prosecution. The prosecution
has established all the links including the fisting of child and   8
laying her nearby the deceased when she became unconscious
and thereafter, burning both of them to death by pouring
kerosene. Likewise, the prosecution has also proved the other
circumstances, namely, threat to PW-2 with dire consequences
and making her to speak to PW-1 over phone impersonating
the deceased, to make it a suicidal case. As rightly analysed      C
by the trial Court and the High Court, we have no hesitation in
arriving at a conclusion that the deceased has not committed
suicide but it is a case of homicide by the accused and the
prosecution has established the offence under Section 302
IPC. We are also satisfied that not only the accused had the       D
knowledge that he had committed the heinous crime but he also
caused disappearance of evidence and had the intention to
screen the offence by burning the body of the deceased and
her child, hence, the prosecution has also established the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC.               E
     19. We are satisfied that the trial Court, after exhaustive
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by both sides, rightly found the appellant-accused guilty of all
the charges and passed the order of conviction and imposed
the appropriate sentence. The reports submitted by the             F
Scientific Officers, viz., PWs 11 and 16, coupled with the post
mortem certificate and the evidence of the Medical Officer,
establish beyond doubt that this is a clear case of murder.
     20. As discussed earlier, the extra-judicial confession       G
made to PW-2 has been rightly accepted by the trial Court as
the same is within the parameters of law and withstood the test
of reasonableness and credibility. An overall assessment of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the
circumstances against the accused in a cogent manner. It is
                                                                   H
    452     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A seen from the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 that the appellant-
  accused had the motive, namely, he had a lustful eye towards
  his sister-in-law, which had been proved beyond doubt.
        21. In justice delivery system, Courts are conscious and
  mindful of the proportion between the rigor of offence committed
B and the pen·aJty imposed as also its impact on society in
  general and the victim of the crime in particular. Social impact
  of the crime where it relates to offences against women cannot
  be Jost sight of and per se requires exemplary treatment. Public
  abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of
c appropriate sentence by the court. Though the trial Court
  imposed life imprisonment which was upheld by the High Court
  in view of the gruesome act of rape followed by double murder,
  we are of the view that the authorities having power of remission
  have to be conscious and cannot pass any such order of
  remission lightly without adhering to various principles
0 enunciated by this Court. [Vide Swami Shraddananda (2) @
  Murli Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC
  767 and Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan vs. State of Rajasthan
  2013 (6) Scale 219].
E      22. The High Court, while analyzing the entire prosecution
  case and the different versions, appreciated the efforts made
  by the team headed by Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel
  (Superintendent of Police) (PW-31), who in spite of being the
  Head of the District Police Force, keeping in view the
  importance and complicity of the crime, personally investigated
F the matter and brought all the relevant and acceptable materials
  before the Court of Jaw. As appreciated by the High Court, we
  also express our appreciation to the team headed by Mr. A.G.
  Ponn Manickavel for their tireless investigation in presenting the
  truth before the Majesty of Law.
G
       23. Jn the light of the above discussion, we are in entire
  agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and
  affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, we dismiss the
  appeal being devoid of merits.
H B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.