M. VELCHAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.38 of 2013, convicting him for the offence under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant was tried along with five others. The accused Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted by the Trial Court. The Prosecution has not preferred any appeal challenging their acquittal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 12/3/2009, P.W.1, Village Assistant, found a dead body of a woman near the Hanuman river bridge. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the respondent and an FIR in Crime No.64 of 2009 on the file of the respondent Police was registered for the offence under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the second wife of the appellant. They were both working as coolie workers in Kerala. Difference of opinion arose between them, since the appellant suspected the character of the deceased. The appellant decided to do away with the deceased and for the purpose of executing his plan, the appellant brought the deceased to his native village at Panpozhi. He took the deceased to the bus stand on 9/3/2009 at 11.00 PM and while nearing an agricultural field, he pushed the deceased and caused her death by cutting her neck with aruval and setting her on fire. On 11/3/2009, the fifth accused found the body of the deceased in his field and he took the help of A2 to A4 and A6 to dispose the body by throwing it in a river nearby. A2 surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.5 and gave a confession. Meanwhile, on 12/3/2009, postmortem was conducted. A2 and A5 were arrested on 25/3/2009 at about 7.30 PM. Thereafter, on 15/3/2010, the appellant, who was away in Kerala, returned to his native village. On 18/3/2010, he gave a confession to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.7. The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.7 produced the appellant before the respondent Police. M.O.1 Aruval was recovered on the basis of confession made to the Police officer. The admissible portion was marked as Ex.P16. On 19/3/2010, the Investigating Officer requested the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the judicial confession of the appellant. The appellant was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil on 25/3/2010. Thereafter, the appellant was directed to be produced on 26/3/2010 to give him time for reflection. On 26/3/2010, the appellant gave a confession before the learned Judicial Magistrate, marked as Ex.P18. The investigation was thereafter conducted and a final report was filed and the case was committed to the III Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant was charged for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and for the offence under Sec. 302 read with 201 IPC along with the other accused.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P40 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.33. P.W.1 is the Village Assistant, who first saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.2 is the neighbour of the deceased, who turned hostile. P.W.3 is another neighbour, who was examined to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. He also turned hostile. P.W.4 is the first wife of the appellant, who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded the confession of the second accused and he turned hostile. P.W.6 is the Village Assistant, who turned hostile. P.W.7 recorded the extra judicial confession of the appellant and was a witness to the recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2. P.W.8 is the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, who recorded the confession of the appellant. P.W.9 is the postmortem Doctor. P.W.10 and 11 are the Deputy Directors in the forensic laboratory. P.W.12 is the Head Constable, who handed over the express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Senkottai. P.W.13 and 14 are Constables, who had aided the investigation. P.W.15 is the witness examined to establish the appellant's marriage with the deceased. He turned hostile. P.W.16 is the Head Clerk. P.W.17 is the Village Administrative Officer, who gave the complaint on the information given by his Assistant, P.W.1 and which led to the registration of FIR. P.W.18 is the employer of the appellant, who turned hostile. P.W.19 is the photographer. P.W.20 to P.W.22 are the Sub Inspector and Inspectors, who registered the FIR and conducted investigation.