MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused 1 and 2 are son and father respectively. The first accused was charged for an offence punishable under Sec. 302, I.P.C. The second accused was charged for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 109, I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 27-9-1985 the first accused murdered his wife by severing her head at Nanjaiyaidaiyar Village and caused her death and that his father A-2 abetted A-1 in committing the murder of his wife. P.W. 1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Nanjaiyidaiyar Village. His evidence is that on 27-9-85 at about 1 p.m. A-1 came to him and gave a confessional statement to the effect that his wife was having illicit intimacy with a teacher by name Ramanuja Iyer, that his wife went away with the said teacher on the previous day and that the first accused brought her back, that on 27-9-1985 his wife was making arrangements to go along with the said teacher and she was adament in her action and so the first accused took out an aruval and severed her head. P.W. 1's further evidence is that the first accused told him that the hands and that the second accused had taken away the head and also the aruval stating that he would go to the police station. The first accused signed the statement given by him and recorded by P.W. 1, after admitting the contents. Ex. P-1 is the confession statement. Ex. P-2 is the carbon copy of the same. Exs. P-3 and P-4 are the reports prepared by P.W. 1. P.W. 1 forwarded Exs. P-2 and P-3 to the Police Station and also sent copies of the same Exs. P-1 and P-4 to the Judicial Magistrate. Some time thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer, Punjaiyidaiyar carne to see P.W. 1. P.W. 1 asked the first accused to sit in his office and at 3.45 p.m. the Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and other came to the office of P.W. 1. The Inspector of Police arrested the first accused and obtained a confession statement from the first accused. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 have turned hostile and therefore their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(3.) P.W. 4 is the owner of the cycle in which the second accused is stated to have taken the head and the aruval to the police station soon after the occurrence. According to P.W. 4 the first accused brought the aruval and the head and asked for a cycle. P.W. 4 seemed to have refused to give the cycle. He identified the head as that of the deceased Selvi, M.O. 1 is the aruval identified by P.W. 4. P.W. 5 turned hostile and his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. P.Ws. 6 and 7 speak about the second accused carrying away the head and the aruval in a cycle. P.W. 8 is a broker in Mohanur Kakka Thope. He found a person carrying - a head of a woman and also a bloodstained aruval on the cycle carrier. Apart from that he could not identify the accused. P.W. 9 is an attestor of the confessional statement obtained by the Inspector of Police from the first accused and he also attested Ex. P-8 under which M.Os. 4 to 6 were seized. Ex. P-7 is the rough sketch prepared by the Inspector of Police, P.W. 10 is the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore, at the time when he was examined. On 27-9-85 he received a message from the Inspector of Police from Vellore Jail under Ex. P-9, P-10 and P-11. He conducted post-mortem over the body of the deceased which was brought by P.C. 173. He issued post-mortem certificate under Ex. P-12. P.W. 11 is the P.C. 189 who took the body of the deceased for post-mortem, P.C. 173 accompanied the Inspector of Police to the Mohanur Police Station at 7 p.m. on 27-9-1985. He received M.O. 1 and also the head of the deceased Selvi with a message under Ex. P-10 and he entrusted the body with the Vellore Government Hospital for postmortem. After the post-mortem is completed he received the dead body and entrusted it with the father of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the Judicial Second Class Magistrate and he speaks about the receipt of the material objects and sending all the material objects for Chemical examination. The other prosecution witnesses do not speak about the occurrence and they speak about the facts subsequent to the occurrence and their evidence need not be taken into consideration very much to find out whether the accused have committed the offences with which they are charged.