MANI Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 10.00 a.m. on 29.12.91, he dropped a stone on the head of Kannammal and caused her death. THE learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is this:- THE accused was a resident of Palakode and was a coolie by profession. He had an acre and a half of land and three years prior to the date of incident, he was under the employment of a contractor, Doraisamy. THE deceased Kannamal also joined Doraisamy as a coolie and the accused developed intimacy with that Kannammal. THE intimacy between the accused and Kannammal went to the knowledge of his wife and therefore, the accused left his house and went to Royakkottai. He used to visit Kannammal without the knowledge of others and whenever he used to visit, he will pay about Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- for her expenses. THE deceased Kannammal also used to meet him and collect moneys from him. THE accused obtained a loan of Rs.1,000/- from a finance company and handed over the same to Kannammal along with a sum of Rs.4,000/-, which he bid in a chit. He was unable to continue to pay the chit amounts. On account of his debts and on account of his illicit relationship with Kannammal, he could not go and join his family. A month prior to the date of incident, the deceased asked him to give her Rs.500/- with a promise that she will return the amount in ten days. He paid the amount. But the deceased did not repay the amount. THErefore, the accused went to her house and asked for the amount and the deceased informed him that she will pay the amount after some time. THE accused asked for the amount after a few days. But the deceased was not properly responding. THE accused got angry and went away. On 27.12.91 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of the deceased and wanted the money to be returned and the deceased promised to pay the amount on the next day. But, on the next day also she did not pay. She took bed along with him. THE accused realised that the deceased is not intending to pay the amount and also felt bad that on account of his illicit relationship with Kannammal, he is not able to continue to live with his wife and children and therefore, decided to finish her of. On 29.12.91, the deceased asked for money from the accused by telling him that she need the amount to visit the doctor. THE accused wanted her to go along with him and he took her to Mudalipatti. THEre he asked the deceased to repay the amount. But the deceased refused to pay the amount and thereafter, he slapped her on the cheek. She fell down. THE accused lifted a stone, which was lying nearby and dropped it on her head, resulting in bleeding injuries to her. He, thereafter, pushed the body into the water in a river. He found her dead. THErefore, he went straight to Palakode and realising that he will be caught, appeared before P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer at about 7.00 a.m. on 30.12.91. He narrated the incident to P.W.1, who reduced the said statement of the accused, which stands marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1, thereafter, proceeded to Karimangalam police station and handed over the accused and Ex.P.1 to P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector. P.W.9, on receiving Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.962 of 1991 against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. by preparing express reports. Ex.P.11 is a copy of the printed first information report. THE accused, who was produced before him, was locked up. THE information was sent to higher officials.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the prosecution did not examine any eye witness, the statement of the accused given to P.W.1 cannot be taken into consideration to find the accused guilty. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials.