Rajalakshmi Ramoo v Sulochana d/o T D Sakkrawarthi [2003] SGMC 31
Suit No: PSS 789/2002, 790/2002, 791/2002, 792/2002, MA 108/2003
Decision Date: 15 Sep 2003
Court: Magistrates Court
Coram: Alvin Koh Meng Sin
Counsel: Thangavelu (Rajah Velu & Co.) for the complainant, Shankar (Rajah Velu & Co.) for the complainant, N Kanagavijayan (Kana & Co.) for the defendant
Judgment
1 The defendant, Sulochana d/o T.D. Sakkrawarthi (“Sulochana”), was charged on private summons before me on one charge under s 323 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and
three charges under s 500 of the Penal Code. Sulochana claimed trial to all four charges. At the end of the trial, following submissions made by defence counsel, Mr Kana, I amended the second and third charge to stand as one charge: “P2A”. The charges are as follows:
1st Charge : “P1” (PSS 789 of 2002)
“You, Sulochana d/o T.D. Sakkrawarthi are charged that you on or about the 23rd of December 2001 about 9.00 am at Yishun market situated at Blk 292 Yishun Street 22, Singapore did voluntarily cause hurt to one Rajalakshmi Ramoo by hitting her with a sandal on the head and kicking her knee and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”
Amended 2nd Charge : “P2A” (PSS 790 of 2002)
“You, Sulochana d/o T.D. Sakkrawarthi are charged that you on the 24th December 2001 at about 1.00pm to 3pm outside Tekka market situated at Buffalo Road did utter defamatory words to Rengasamy Kumaravelu and Angeline Malar d/o Govindarajah concerning Rajalakshmi Ramoo to wit by calling her a prostitute and that her children were all born from different men thereby intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such words will harm the reputation of Rajalakshmi Ramoo, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 500 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”
3rd Charge : “P4” (PSS 792 of 2002)
“You, Sulochana d/o T.D. Sakkrawarthi are charged that you on or about the 28th to 30th day of December 2001 did utter defamatory words to Margaret Jayamani @ Maygnam J Soloman over the telephone concerning Rajalakshmi Ramoo to wit by calling her a prostitute and that her children were all born from different men thereby intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such words will harm the reputation of Rajalakshmi Ramoo, and you have thereby committed an offence publishable under section 500 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”
2 On the evidence, I found that the complainant, Rajalakshmi Ramoo (“Rajalakshmi”) had made out her case on the above mentioned three charges and I convicted Sulochana accordingly. On the first charge of voluntarily causing hurt, I sentenced Sulochana to one month’s imprisonment. On the two criminal defamation charges, I ordered her to be fined $2,000 on each charge. Sulochana appealed against conviction and sentence on all three charges. These are the reasons for my decision.
The case for the prosecution
3 The prosecution called a total of seven witnesses to the stand:
a) PW1: Rajalakshmi Ramoo, the complainant
b) PW2: Raveendran Vijayan (“Raveendran”), Sulochana’s estranged husband.
c) PW3: Dr Singam S.B (“Dr Singam”), Rajalakshmi’s examining doctor
d) PW4: Rengasamy Kumaravelu (“Kumaravelu”), Margaret’s husband
e) PW5: Margaret Jayamani (“Margaret”), Raveendran’s cousin
f) PW6: Angeline Malar (“Angeline”), Margaret and Kumaravelu’s daughter-in-law
g) PW7: Leena Rema Revendran (“Leena”), Raveendran’s sister
Testimony of PW1 – Rajalakshmi Ramoo (‘Rajalakshmi’)
4 Rajalakshmi, also known as “Lakshmi”, was Raveendran’s landlord up to the time of the trial. She has four children aged between 8 to 11 years.
5 On 23 December 2001, Rajalakshmi accompanied Raveendran to Marsiling to do some shopping. She later waited at a bus-stop while he delivered what he bought to his children, and they then proceeded to Yishun market. While they waited at the mutton stall, Sulochana appeared with Elbina and Valerine, approached her and started to verbally abuse her in a mix of English and Tamil. Sulochana accused Rajalakshmi of having slept with different men. A crowd soon gathered but Sulochana persisted in shouting at her and blocking her way, thus preventing her escape. Rajalakshmi testified that she was embarrassed by the shouting and accusations and could hardly say anything. Sulochana removed her 2½ inch high heeled sandal from her right foot, and used it to hit Rajalakshmi twice on the right side of her head. Sulochana then pushed her chest and used her right leg to kick Rajalakshmi’s right knee, whilst continually abusing her with vulgarities. Rajalakshmi could not shield herself as her hands were carrying bags of marketing. Sulochana further alleged that Rajalakshmi’s children were born from different men. Rajalakshmi cried and when a few people moved away, she managed to escape by walking away. Sulochana did not pursue her.
6 Subsequently, Rajalakshmi met Raveendran and asked him why he did not come to her assistance. Raveendran explained that this was because Sulochana had a “PPO” (“Personal Protection Order”) against him.
7 Rajalakshmi testified that her head was slightly swollen and she was not able to walk as her knee was painful and swollen. She explained that she had not gone to see a doctor immediately after the incident at Yishun market as Raveendran had begged her not to report the matter to the police or visit a doctor and asked her to leave the matter. At first, Rajalakshmi merely applied ointment on her right knee. However, on 7 January 2002, unable to bear with the pain any longer, Rajalakshmi went to Hougang Polyclinic. She complained about the pain on her head and her swollen right knee. She testified that the doctor felt the right side of her head and said that there was no longer much of a swell there anymore. She was prescribed with pain killers and an ointment (“P7”) to rub on her knee. Notably, “P7” was dated 7 January 2002.
8 On the criminal defamation charges, Rajalakshmi testified that she met Kumaravelu, Margaret and Angeline when they came to speak to Raveendran at her house on one occasion. They did not really speak much to her but stayed for about four hours. Rajalakshmi learnt that Sulochana had spoken to them and told them that she was “loose” and sleeping around and that all her children were born from different men. Rajalakshmi also found out from Margaret that Sulochana met Kumaravelu and Angeline at Tekka market. She obtained from them Margaret’s telephone number and subsequently she called her to make the same defamatory remarks to her.
Testimony of PW2 – Mr Raveendran Vijayan (‘Raveendran’)
9 Raveendran testified that he had been estranged from Sulochana for over three years and there was no possibility of reconciliation between them. He had lived as Rajalakshmi’s tenant for the last two years.
10 On 23 December 2001, Raveendran went to Marsiling market with Rajalakshmi to buy prawns. He made arrangements to hand the prawns to Valerine and Elbina and also told them that he would go to Yishun market to purchase chicken and mutton. He then went to pick Rajalakshmi up from at a nearby bus-stop where he left her as he knew that his wife had a jealous disposition and did not want to have problems with her.
11 Within ten minutes of their arrival at Yishun market, Sulochana, Elbina and Valerine appeared before them. Sulochana approached Raveendran and asked whether he had come with Rajalakshmi, referring to her as ‘this woman’. Raveendran told her to ask Rajalakshmi herself. A quarrel soon broke out between Rajalakshmi and Sulochana and Raveendran testified that it was Sulochana who started scolding vulgarities at Rajalakshmi and told her that all her four children were born of different men. Sulochana removed her right shoe and hit Rajalakshmi twice on the top of her head with it. She replaced her shoe and pushed Rajalakshmi twice. Sulochana then kicked her on her right leg.
12 Although Raveendran was concerned for Rajalakshmi’s safety, he did not dare intervene because he felt that Sulochana was trying to provoke and get him into trouble since she had a PPO against him. He denied that he had moved away when the quarrel broke out. In fact, Valereine who was standing nearby told him that what Sulochana was doing was ‘shameful’. Rajalakshmi appeared stunned and shocked and was unable to retaliate as she was carrying two red plastic bags of marketing in her hands. She limped away towards him and Raveendran told her to move to his taxi.
13 Rajalakshmi sat in Raveendran’s taxi in a state of shock, crying and complaining about the pain in her leg. Raveendran urged Rajalakshmi not to make a police report as he felt that Sulochana was still his wife and they had lived together for twenty years. He testified that he told Rajalakshmi to see a doctor but she refused saying that she would not know what to tell the doctor since he forbade her from making a police report.
14 A few days after Christmas, Margaret, Kumaravelu and Angeline visited him at Rajalakshmi’s flat. They told him that they had met Sulochana on 24 December 2001 and she had told them that she had beaten Rajalakshmi ‘properly’ at Yishun market. Kumaravelu narrated in detail what Sulochana told him about Rajalakshmi when they met at Tekka market. Margaret also told Raveendran that Sulochana had called her and told her that Rajalakshmi was a “bitch” and a “prostitute” who had slept with many men and that all her four children were from different men. Raveendran testified that Margaret scolded him for staying in an immoral woman’s house. The three left after spending three to five hours at the house.
Testimony of PW3 – Dr Singam S.B. (‘Dr Singam’)
15 Dr Singam is a medical officer attached with Hougang Polyclinic. She confirmed that Rajalakshmi came to the polyclinic on various dates, including 7 January 2002 and 24 January 2002 and tendered medical report “P6”. She stated that Rajalakshmi’s visit on 7 January 2002 was attended by her colleague, Dr Seah Chee Yong (“Dr Seah”), who examined Rajalakshmi and recorded in the medical notes that Rajalakshmi had complained of an injury to her right knee as a result of a kick and had been suffering from it for two weeks. Dr Singam testified that it appeared from Dr Seah’s medical notes that there was some slight tenderness in Rajalakshmi’s right knee.
16 On 7 February 2002, Dr Singam examined Rajalakshmi. She noted that Rajalakshmi’s right knee showed “minimum swelling with slight tenderness of the right knee”. Movement of the right knee was slightly limited by the pain. Dr Singam stated that she was unaware if Rajalakshmi had made a police report. However, subsequently during cross-examination, Dr Singam testified that Rajalakshmi had told her that she did not make a police report. Also, Rajalakshmi did not appear to be sure of the date when she was assaulted and thus a number of cancellations were made in the medical notes.
Testimony of PW4 – Mr Rengasamy Kumaravelu (‘Kumaravelu’)
17 Kumaravelu informed the court that on 24 December 2001, he was at Tekka market with Angeline waiting for Margaret to do her shopping. Sulochana approached them and spoke to him whilst Angeline stood beside them throughout the conversation. Sulochana revealed that she was having problems with Raveendran and that he was staying with another woman. She also told him that she had seen them at Yishun market and a fight had broken out where Sulochana had hit the other woman with her shoe. After about ten to 15 minutes, Sulochana asked for Kumaravelu’s residential telephone number, saying that she wanted to talk to Margaret. Kumaravelu obliged her. Later, when Kumaravelu met Margaret, he told her about this conversation. Margaret appeared shocked but remained silent.
18 A few days after Christmas, Kumaravelu and Angeline accompanied Margaret to visit Raveendran at Rajalakshmi’s residence as she wanted to discuss with Raveendran what Sulochana was talking about. Both Raveendran and Rajalakshmi were in when they arrived. Kumaravelu told Raveendran about his conversation with Sulochana at Tekka market. While Margaret continued the discussion with Raveendran about this matter, Kumaravelu testified that he did not pay close attention as he was not very interested in their conversation.
19 During cross-examination, Kumaravelu testified that prior to 24 December 2001, he had never met Rajalakshmi before and certainly had not gone on a trip with Raveendran and Rajalakshmi. However, when he was at Rajalakshmi’s house, she was introduced to him as the house owner. Kumaravelu testified that before 24 December 2001, he rarely met Sulochana. He denied that he had advised her to go to the Family Court to seek maintenance from Raveendran.
Testimony of PW5 –Margaret Jayamani (‘Margaret’)
20 Margaret described her relationship with both Raveendran and Sulochana as not very close. They would only occasionally see each other at family gatherings. She had not spoken to Sulochana over the telephone for years and seldom spoke to Raveendran on the phone.
21 On 24 December 2001, Margaret met her husband and Angeline after doing her shopping at Tekka market. Kumaravelu informed her that they met Sulochana who him that Sulochana claimed that one “Lakshmi” was having an affair with her husband. Margaret also remembered her husband telling her that Sulochana had gone to Yishun market and had hit Rajalakshmi with her sandal.
22 A few days later, Sulochana telephoned Margaret and asked if she knew that Raveendran was having a relationship with Rajalakshmi. Sulochana told Margaret that Rajalakshmi has four children and each of them were not born of the same father. Sulochana even claimed to know some of these men. She also stated that she felt very satisfied after hitting Rajalakshmi and threatened to hit Raveendran’s mother (i.e. Margaret’s sister) because Sulochana felt that she kept on siding with her son. Upon hearing these, Margaret was shocked and refused to believe Sulochana’s words.
23 After obtaining Raveendran’s address from Sulochana, Margaret went to visit Raveendran at Rajalakshmi’s premises. Margaret spoke at length with Raveendran and informed him of what Sulochana had told her. During the course of the visit, Raveendran introduced Rajalakshmi as the owner of the house to Margaret. Margaret testified that Rajalakshmi had sat with them and the both of them had talked. Rajalakshmi even cried and told her that she had been hit by Sulochana.
Testimony of PW6 – Angeline Malar (‘Angeline’)
24 Angeline testified that around 2pm on 24 December 2001, she was at Tekka market with Kumaravelu waiting for Margaret. Sulochana approached them and spoke to Kumaravelu. Angeline learnt from their conversation that Sulochana had earlier hit Rajalakshmi with her sandal. Sulochana also said that Rajalakshmi had taken her husband away from her and that she would take revenge. In the course of the conversation, Angeline heard Sulochana use “Lakshmi”, “prostitute” and “that woman” to describe Rajalakshmi and claim that Rajalakshmi “had slept with many different men.” Angeline distinctly remembered that it was Sulochana who asked for Kumaravelu’s residential telephone number and he gave it to her. The entire conversation took about 15-20 minutes.
25 A few days after Christmas, Angeline went with Margaret and Kumaravelu to visit Raveendran to discuss Sulochana’s allegations. However, she testified that she was more preoccupied with watching television and therefore was not concentrating much on the conversation between Margaret and Raveendran which appeared to her to be centred around Sulochana and Rajalakshmi. Just before they left, Margaret introduced Rajalakshmi to her.
Testimony of PW7 – Leena Rema Revendran (‘Leena’)
26 Leena is Raveendran’s sister. She testified that sometime in the evening of 23 December 2001, she received a call from Raveendran telling her that Sulochana had hit Rajalakshmi with her sandal and warned that Sulochana might try to beat up their mother.
The close of the complainant’s case
27 At the close of the complainant’s case, the defence declined to make a submission of no case to answer. I applied the test in Haw Tua Tau v PP [1980-1981] SLR 73 [1981] 2 MLJ 49, and was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established. Accordingly, I administered the standard allocution and called for the defence. Sulochana elected to give evidence.
The case for the defence
Testimony of DW1 – Sulochana d/o TD Sakkrawarthi (‘Sulochana’)
28 Sulochana testified that her marriage with Raveendran was on the rocks as he had too many women in his life. She readily admitted that she felt a lot of anger against Raveendran and regarded any woman that she saw with her husband as being on intimate terms with him.
29 On 23 December 2001, Sulochana went to Yishun market with her two daughters, Elbina and Valerine. Her meeting with Raveendran and Rajalakshmi was by chance. When she saw them, she became angry and thought that Rajalakshmi was having an affair with her husband.
30 According to Sulochana, the quarrel arose because Rajalakshmi started scolding her vulgarities. Both women were standing face to face in a confrontational stance when an angry Rajalakshmi used her right hand to push Sulochana. She almost fell. Intending to protect herself, Sulochana took off her right slipper [“D1”] and threw it at Rajalakshmi. Sulochana insisted that the slipper did not hit her at all and landed a few metres away from her. Rajalakshmi warned that she would teach Sulochana a lesson and left the place quickly.
31 After about ten minutes, Sulochana was still crying at the stall as she waited for the mutton that she previously ordered to be prepared for her. An Indian national, Balusamy Elayaraja (“Raja”) approached and told her that he had overheard Raveendran and Rajalakshmi quarrelling in the carpark. He warned that Rajalakshmi had wanted Raveendran to beat her up as Sulochana had insulted her in public. Raja added that Raveendran explained to Rajalakshmi that as Sulochana had a “PPO” against him, he could not oblige her. Raja then helped Sulochana carry the baskets of food to her home. He also offered to assist Sulochana should she decide to make a complaint against Rajalakshmi. Hence, Sulochana noted down Raja’s name, contact number, the company he was working for and his work permit number at the market. When they reached Sulochana’s house, she again asked Raja for further details to reach him and he gave her his handphone number. However, Sulochana claimed that she never called Raja nor did she discuss the case with him.
32 On 24 December 2001, Sulochana testified that she went to Tekka market with her daughter, Rabicca and her husband, Sashi Kumar at about 11am. Kumaravelu approached her and Sulochana recognised him to be Raveendran’s cousin even though they had not met for many years. She claimed that Kumaravelu informed her that Raveendran told him he was getting divorced from Sulochana. Kumaravelu also revealed that Raveendran had committed adultery and that she should go to the Family Court to make a report against him. Kumaravelu added that he had even gone with Rajalakshmi, Raveendran and Margaret to Malaysia on one occasion. Sulochana testified that the entire conversation lasted no more than five minutes and Angeline who was standing beside Kumaravelu throughout this time could clearly hear the contents of their conversation. Rabicca and Sashi were standing nearby at a goldsmith shop about five metres away. Sulochana testified that she did not ask for Kumaravelu’s contact number; rather it was Kumaravelu who had asked for her residential number as he wanted to speak further to her. She only gave him her handphone number.
33 Around 28 December 2001, Sulochana received a call from Margaret on her handphone. As she was busy at that time, she did not speak to her and asked her for a number to call her back. Margaret declined and there were no subsequent calls after that. She flatly denied that she had called or spoke to Margaret nor had she referred to Rajalakshmi as “Lakshmi”. Sulochana admitted that she did not think that Rajalakshmi was a prostitute. But Sulochana recognised Rajalakshmi to be someone whom she had seen her husband bring to the house sometime in 1999. Then, Raveendran told her that he was helping Rajalakshmi with her divorce and also told her that she was a flirt and that her first child was born to a Muslim man.
Testimony of DW2 – Sashi Kumar s/o Cheliah (‘Sashi’)
34 Sashi is Sulochana’s son-in-law. On 24 December 2001, he was with Sulochana and his wife at Tekka market when they met Kumaravelu and Angeline. He testified that Sulochana approached them and started speaking to them. Sashi and his wife then went to look at some jewellery at a nearby goldsmith shop. About five minutes later, they called out to Sulochana, and Sashi testified that Sulochana passed to the relatives a note which he believed was Sulochana’s telephone number. At that time, Sashi was aware of the problems that existed between Sulochana and her husband. He was also unhappy and angry with Raveendran.
Testimony of DW3 – Balusamy Elayaraja (‘Raja’)
35 Raja is an Indian national working in Singapore on work permit. He testified that on 23 December 2001, he was at Yishun market when he overheard Sulochana asking Raveendran what he was doing there and who Rajalakshmi was. Raveendran told her to ask Rajalakshmi herself and thereafter left the place. He claimed that in the quarrel that took place between the two women, it was Rajalakshmi who first pushed Sulochana and called her a prostitute. Sulochana almost fell and in a moment of anger, took off her slipper from her right foot and threw it at Rajalakshmi. However, it did not hit her and the slipper landed near the mutton stall. The slipper resembled “D1” although he could not remember what colour it was. Subsequently, Rajalakshmi left.
36 Later, as Raja walked towards the carpark, he overheard Rajalakshmi telling Raveendran that if he did not get people to beat up Sulochana, she would not leave with him. Raveendran replied saying that it was a “police case” and he could not make such arrangements. On hearing this, Raja decided to return to the mutton stall where he found Elbina, Valerine and Sulochana crying. He informed Sulochana of what he had heard in the carpark and advised the women to leave the place. Seeing that Sulochana was crying and carrying many things, Raja offered to help carry the bags to their residence but Sulochana declined his offer. Raja persisted for a further three times and on the fourth request, Sulochana accepted it. Raja testified that at the entrance to Sulochana’s flat, she asked Raja if he would be her witness should she decide to lodge a complaint with the police. He agreed. Sulochana then asked him for his contact number and Raja obliged and gave his handphone number and work permit number. During cross-examination, Raja stated that he was certain that he did not give any of his contact details to Sulochana at Yishun market. Despite being informed by Sulochana about two months after the incident that his name was given to the police, Raja testified that he had not been called up by the police to make a statement.
Testimony of DW4 – Vijayan Elbina Joyce (‘Elbina’)
37 Elbina is 17 years old and is Raveendran and Sulochana’s daughter. She currently resides with Sulochana and is awaiting entry to a polytechnic. On 23 December 2001, Elbina received a call from Raveendran and went to collect some prawns from him. Raveendran did not tell her that he was going to Yishun market. About half an hour later, at about 9am, she went with her sister, Valerine, and Sulochana to Yishun market where they met Raveendran and Rajalakshmi by chance. Sulochana went up to Raveendran and demanded to know who Rajalakshmi was. When told to go and ask Rajalakshmi herself, Sulochana became angry and demanded to know who Rajalakshmi was in a loud tone. A dispute soon broke out and Raveendran immediately left the place. Rajalakshmi scolded Sulochana with vulgarities and warned that she should divorce Raveendran before she got somebody to beat her up. Elbina testified that the two women were standing about two metres apart at this point when Rajalakshmi walked up to Sulochana and pushed her, causing her to stumble backwards. From a distance of two to three metres away, Sulochana threw her right slipper, “D1” at Rajalakshmi but it failed to hit her and landed about one metre away from her. Rajalakshmi shouted and then left the place.
38 About five minutes later, Raja approached Sulochana and advised them to leave immediately. Raja offered to help carry their bags but Sulochana refused. Sulochana then asked him if he was willing to be her witness if she wanted to go to court on the matter. Raja agreed. At this point, Sulochana took down his work permit number. While Sulochana at first declined Raja’s offer to help carry their shopping bags, Raja persisted in his offer and finally, Sulochana agreed. At the entrance to their house, Raja provided his phone number and work permit number to them. Elbina reiterated that Raja provided his work permit number on two occasions.
Testimony of DW5 – Valereine Joyce d/o Vijayan (‘Valereine’)
39 Valerine Joyce is Elbina’s younger sister. She continues to reside with Sulochana, her mother and attends secondary school. On 23 December 2001, she went to Yishun market with Sulochana and Elbina where they met Raveendran with Rajalakshmi. In the quarrel that ensued, Valerine testified that Rajalakshmi threatened Sulochana in a loud angry voice in Tamil and said that if she did not divorce Raveendran, she would get someone to kill her and “take out her intestines”. Rajalakshmi pushed Sulochana causing her to fall backwards. However, she managed to regain her balance. Valerine stated that Sulochana took off her right slipper, “D1” and from a distance of five metres, threw it at Rajalakshmi in order to protect herself. The slipper fell “a few metres” away from Rajalakshmi. Rajalakshmi then threatened Sulochana again before walking away very quickly.
40 About ten minutes later, Raja came up to them and informed them that he had overheard Rajalakshmi telling Raveendran in the car park that she would harm Sulochana by getting people to take out her intestines. Valerine testified that upon hearing this from Raja, Sulochana got down his name and work permit number and she asked Raja if he could help her to carry the food back to their house. Raja agreed. Upon reaching their house, Sulochana again asked Raja for his contact number, his name and his work permit number.
Closing submissions
41 At the close of the defence’s case, both the complainant and defence tendered written submissions, essentially arguing that the testimonies of their respective witnesses ought to be preferred.
The court’s decision
Demeanour and conduct of the complainant’s witnesses
42 The case, being essentially a dispute of fact, necessitated a close scrutiny of the testimonies given by the witnesses. The applicable principles are succinctly found in Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v PP [2001] 4 SLR 610, where the learned Chief Justice Yong Pung How (“Yong CJ”) stated that the credibility of a witness can be based on some or all of the following, namely (a) his demeanour; (b) the internal consistency (or lack thereof) in the content of his evidence; and (c) the external consistency (or lack thereof) between the content of his evidence and extrinsic evidence such as the evidence of other witnesses.
43 On the test laid out in Farida’s case, I found the prosecution witnesses to be truthful and credible on material issues. In my view, Rajalakshmi gave a cogent and logical account of the events at Yishun market on 23 December 2001 and I accepted her testimony. Up till 23 December 2001, she did not know Sulochana at all and clearly had no cause to quarrel with her. I also did not believe that Raveendran, who was still married to Sulochana at the time of the trial would fabricate the facts leading to these charges, particularly since his children continue to live with Sulochana who is their sole breadwinner. He had nothing to gain in assisting Rajalakshmi in trumping up these charges and getting his wife convicted. He even went out of his way to make sure he did not unduly antagonise Sulochana by leaving Rajalakshmi at the bus-stop when he delivered the prawns to his children.
:
:
:
Full text here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?a2bm88bh5hssteu
