NATRAJ CHINNAPPA NAIR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-07-07
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Natraj Chinnappa Nair

Respondents

State of Maharashtra

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shankar Divate (A.C.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Ravindra K. Adsure

Case Synopsis & Summary

Natraj Chinnappa Nair was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court held the case rested on a complete chain of circumstances, which the Bombay High Court upheld. The prosecution’s case centers on the testimony of PW-3, Anil Das, who had accompanied the accused and his wife to their home in a rickshaw and testified that the accused hurled abuses at his wife. After the assault, the accused purportedly consumed poison and was taken to the police station by his mother, then to the hospital. Police recovered a chopper and a blouse from the accused’s premises, with a memorandum discovery confirming the recoveries. The inquest and subsequent investigations led to the charge under Section 302 IPC. The defense argued that the circumstances were insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of evidence was not complete enough to prove guilt. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances relied upon by the trial court and the High Court, including PW-3’s account and the physical recoveries, and concluded that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with the accused having caused the death of his wife. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 (s.302 IPC)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that, in light of the circumstances of the case, there is no cogent basis to convict on circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstances is not complete and there is no direct link establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense asserts that the evidence, including PW-3’s testimony, the absence of a definitive motive, and the lack of a conclusive sequence linking the accused to the murder, fails to meet the standard required for a conviction under s.302 IPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that the chain of circumstantial evidence, when read with PW-3’s testimony and the recoveries of the chopper and blouse at the accused’s instance, conclusively establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court and High Court correctly held that these circumstances create a complete chain pointing to the accused’s guilt, justifying the conviction under s.302 IPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 85 A ,. -+ ## NATRAJ CHINNAPPA NAIR ## _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 instance of accused conclusively established that accused removed the blouse of his wife and thereafter assaulted her with chopper_ - _Evidence_ - _Circumstantial evidence_ - _Appreciation of_ ' E ... Appellant was brought to the police station by his mother in a taxi, who informed the SHO of the police station 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 officials 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, accordingly convicted Appellant under Section 302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. H, 85 86 [2008] 10 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 8 A Dismissing the appeal, the Court C D 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 Appellant and his wife to their house in his rickshaw and narrated about hur\-i!19 of abuses by the Appellant to his wife. After the assault, he consumed poison and was taken to the police 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 chopper. Recoyery of the chopper and a blouse at the instance of the accused are other circumstances which conclusively 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] 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. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 punishable 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 MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] 87 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 towards 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 declared 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 discovery 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. 88 A tu re of the Sr. Pl Shi role on 10.8.1998. D E F 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 appellant submitted that having regards to the circumstances of the case, no case for conviction is made out. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported 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 by the accused to his wife. After the assault he consumed poison and was taken to the police st~tion by his mother and thereafter 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 the blouse at the instance of the accused are other circumstances 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.