NADIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3-3-2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1997, Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The prosecution case is that P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased is the elder brother of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused No. 4 is the father of the deceased and accused Nos. 1 to 3. P.W. 1 is the daughter-in-law of accused No. 4. The deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of Sodiankadu village. P.W. 1 married the deceased about 9 years prior to the date of occurrence. P.W. 1 and the appellants herein lived as a joint family. It is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. P.W. 1 was having a five and half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time of occurrence. P.W. 1s father was looking after his daughter and children. On 14-7-1994 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came in a bicycle to his house. P.W. 1 offered him food, but he refused to eat. He enquired from P.W. 1 as to where his father was. At that time, accused No. 4, the father of the deceased was in the house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him, but he refused to give him the money since he was allegedly leading a wayward life. The deceased threatened accused No. 4. At that time, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were sitting in the tractor shed. The mother of the deceased was in the kitchen. Accused No. 4 decided to finish off the deceased since he had threatened him. Suddenly accused No. 1 chased the deceased and caught hold of him and accused No. 4 instructed accused No. 3 to bring a rope. There was a streetlight burning at that time. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 tied the deceased with the rope. On seeing that, P.W. 1 shouted and the deceased also asked them to leave him. After tying the deceased, they brought him to a tractor shed. Immediately, accused No. 1 took a wooden reeper and beat the deceased on his forehead. Blood oozed out from his forehead. P.W. 1 cried and the deceased also shouted asking them to leave him. At that time, P.W. 4 came there and asked them as to why they are beating the deceased. The accused told him that it being their family affair, he should not interfere. Immediately P.W. 4 left the place. Thereafter, accused No. 1 attacked the deceased again with the wooden reeper on his right wrist. P.W. 6 and one Gangammal intervened and asked them as to why they were attacking the deceased. They were also warned by the accused not to interfere, since it was their family affairs. Thereafter, they also left the place. Even after the attack, since the deceased did not breathe his last, accused No. 3 brought a rope and accused Nos. 1 and 2 tied it on the neck of the deceased and strangled him. Further, accused No. 3 brought pesticide at the instance of accused No. 4. Accused No. 1 held the head of the deceased and accused No. 2 poured the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased. P.W. 1 who was standing outside shouted. Immediately, the mother-in-law sprinkled some water on her face. The deceased was found dead. On receipt of the information, the villagers came to the scene of occurrence. The accused threatened P.W. 1 that she will also meet the same fate as the deceased if she told the truth. Hence before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 1 stated everything as instructed by the accused, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex. P. 1. The same was forwarded along with the report, Ex. P. 6 to Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station through a menial servant. Thereafter the father of P.W. 1 reached there and asked her as to what transpired. She narrated to him what really happened as also to the police. After fifteen days, she also gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, which was marked as ex. P. 2.

(3.) In the post-mortem report the injuries as mentioned in the body of the deceased are as follows :-