NATRAJ CHINNAPPA NAIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                      [2008] 10 S.C.R. 85

      ,.                         NATRAJ CHINNAPPA NAIR                         A
                                              v.
                                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                             (Criminal Appeal No.1002 of 2008)
                                        JULY 7, 2008
      -+                                                                       B
                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ·

                       Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Accused brought by his
                 mother to police station - He stated to SHO that he assaulted
                 his wife in fit of anger and thereafter consumed poison - Con- c
                 viction by Trial Court under s.302 on basis of circumstantial
...              evidence - Affirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: PW3
                 who had dropped accused and his wife to their house in his
                 rickshaw narrated about hurling of abuses by accused to his
                 wife - She died as a result of incised injuries caused by a
                                                                                D
                 chopper - Recovery of the chopper and a blouse at the in-
                 stance of accused conclusively established that accused re-
                                                                                    '   '
                 moved the blouse of his wife and thereafter assaulted her with         I
                 chopper - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Apprecia-
                 tion of
                                                                               E
                       Appellant was brought to the police station by his
                 mother in a taxi, who informed the SHO of the police sta-
                 tion that Appellant had consumed poison. The SHO made
                 inquiry from Appellant who purportedly stated that he had
                 assaulted his wife in a fit of anger and then himself con~ F
                 sumed poison. He was sent to the hospital. Police offi-
                 cials went to the spot and found wife of the Appellant in
                 an injured condition. She died on way to hospital. The
                 charge sheet was filed under s.302 IPC. The Trial Court
                 found that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and G
                 the chain of circumstances was complete and, accord-
                 ingly convicted Appellant under Section 302 IPC and im-
           ...   posed life imprisonment. High Court affirmed the con-
                 viction. Hence the present appeal.
                                              85                               H,
           86        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 10 S.C.R.


  A              Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                 HELD: The circumstances highlighted by the Trial
           Court and the High Court to find the accuseduAppellant
           guilty are the evidence of PW3 who had dropped Appel-
           lant and his wife to their house in his rickshaw and narrated
  8        about hur\-i!19 of abuses by the Appellant to his wife. After
           the assault, he consumed poison and was taken to the po-
           lice station by his mother and thereafter to the hospital where
           he was treated. by doctor. Appellant's wife died as a result of
           s.everal .inc!:;;ed injury on her body which were caused by a
  C        chopper. Recoyery of the chopper and a blouse at the in-
           stance of the accused are other circumstances which con-
           clusively established thatthe Appellant was in the room and
           removed the blouse of his wife and thereafter assaulted her
           with chopper. (Para 5] (88-o,E·& F]
  D
               CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
           1002 of 2008
          From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 of
     the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No .
  E· 47 of 2005
                . Shankar Divate (A.C.) for the Appellant.
                 Ravindra K. Ads·ure for the Respondent.
                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
  F
                 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted .
                 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
           Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed
           by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment of
  G        a learned Additional Sessions Judge , Greater Mumbai in the
           SC Case No. 1098of1998. He was convicted for offence pun-
           ishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
           shortttie 'IPC} .

' ti'··.         3. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows :
           NATRAJ CHINNAPPA NAIR v. STATE OF                87
           MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

       PSI Balwant Patil was working as a Station House Officer A
in Tilak Nagar Police Station from 8 AM to 6 PM. At about 4.30
p.m. one taxi halted in front of the police station. A lady named
Tulsibai Chinnappa got down from the said taxi and came to
the police station and informed the Station House officer Patil
that her son Natraj has consumed Tik-20 Poison and he has s
been brought in the taxi. The Station House Officer rushed to-
wards the taxi. He is alleged to have made inquiry form the
person who was said to have consumed Tik 20 poison. The
said person purportedly stated before him that he assaulted
his wife in a hit of anger and he himself consumed the Tik 20 C
poison. Nivas Ayyer and Prakash Muthkar were the other two
persons sitting in the taxi. The person who was said to have
consumed the Tik 20 poison became restless and serious ;:ind
thus he was sent to Rajawadi Hospital with P.C. No. 5437. PSI
Pail along with Pl Shirole went to the spot Panchsheel Nagar.
                                                                  0
Several people were found to have gathered in front of one
Kuch ha road. They entered the room and found that one woman
lying in an injured condition in the room. On inquiry, PSI Patil
came to know from one Laxmi Surya the sister of Natraj that the
injured woman is the wife of his brother Natraj Nair. The injured
woman who was in a serious condition was sent to Rajawadi E
Hospital. Before her admission in the hospital, she was de-
clared dead by the doctor on duty. PSI Patil filed complaint on
behalf of the State against the accused. The offence under
Section 302 IPC was registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station
at Crime No. 143-98.                                              F
      PSI Patil drew the inquest panchanama on the dead body
of Surya Natraj the dead. Further investigation was carried by
Pl Shirole. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On
26.7.1998 he seized the clothes of the accused and drew the G
panchanama. On 1.8.1998 he seized the chopper and blouse
at the instance of the accused Natraj under memorandum dis-
covery panchnama. Accused was arrested on 29.7 .1998 when
he was discharged from the hospital. The attached properties
were sent to the C.A. along with the covering letter under signa-
                                                                 H
    88        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   tu re of the Sr. Pl Shi role on 10.8.1998.
          Since accused abjured with guilt, eieven witnesses were
    examined to substantiate the prosecution version. The trial court
    found that though the case rested on circumstantial evidence
    and the chain of circumstances was complete and, therefore,
8   he must be punished for offence punishable under Section 302
    IPC. Life imprisonment was imposed. Before the High Court
    the stand taken was that the circumstances highlighted by the
    prosecution do not make out a case of conviction of the ac~
    cused. The prosecution on the other hand submitted that the
C   circumstances clearly establish the offence by the accused.
          4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
    lant submitted that having regards to the circumstances of the
    case, no case for conviction is made out.
D         5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand sup-
    ported the order. Circumstances highlighted by the trial court
    and the High Court to find the accused guilty are the evidence
    of Anil Das-PW 3 who had dropped the accused and his wife to
    their house in his rickshaw and narrated about hurling of abuses
E   by the accused to his wife. After the assault he consumed poi-
    son and was taken to the police st~tion by his mother and there-
    after to the hospital where he was treated by a doctor. The
    deceased died as a result of several incised injury on h~r body
    which were caused by a chopper. Recovery of the chocker and
F   the blouse at the instance of the accused are other circum-
    stances which conclusively established that the accused was
    in the room and removed the blouse of his wife and thereafter
    assaulted her with chopper.
       6. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal
G and the same is accordingly dismissed.
    B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.