(1.) The sole appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as 'the accused, was tried before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in Sessions Case No.163 of 1998. The allegation against him in the charge is that at 1.00 a.m. on 30/31.12.95, he slapped his wife, Muthumani and also beat her on the head and after she fell down unconscious, threw her into a canal, thinking that she is dead, as a result of which, she died on account of asphyxia due to drowning. The learned Sessions Judge, accepting the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which are in challenge in this appeal.
(2.) The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows:- The deceased is the wife of the accused. P.W.2 is their daughter and P.W.1 is the younger brother of P.W.2. During the relevant period, they were residing at Pallimuthur. The accused developed intimacy with his sister-in-law and the deceased was, therefore, questioning him as regards the said conduct. There used to be quarrels between the husband and wife on account of that. On 30.12.95 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused left the village, after informing his family members that he intends purchasing manure. But he did not return home until evening. The deceased, accompanied by her son, P.W.1, went to the field to irrigate the lands and at 1.00 a.m., the accused returned. The deceased questioned the accused as to why he had taken so much time for purchasing manure and found fault with him. She also accused him of having relationship with her sister, leading to a quarrel between the husband and wife. The accused slapped her and also beat her on the head. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. P.W.1, who was present, held the hands of his father and requested him not to beat her. The accused took P.W.1 to the house and after leaving him in the custody of his daughter, P.W.2, returned to the field and finding his wife remaining unconscious and thinking that she is dead, threw her into a canal. Later, he returned home and on being questioned by his two children, informed them that their mother has left for her parental home. He, thereafter, went to his father-in-law's house, where he met P.W.4 on 1.1.96. The accused was questioned by P.W.4 as he was in a pensive mood and the accused, thereafter, opened his heart and poured out the truth. P.W.4 took the accused and produced him before P.W.3, the Village Administrative Officer, at 9.45 a.m. and to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.3, the accused narrated the whole incident. The said narration was reduced into writing. The said statement of the accused given to P.W.3 is Ex.P.1. P.W.3, thereafter, prepared his report, Ex.P.2 and sent Exs.P.1, P.2 and the accused to Palacode police station, where they were produced before P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector at noon. P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector, on receipt of Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused was locked-up. He prepared express reports and Ex.P.7 is a copy of the printed first information report. He informed the Inspector of Marandalli.
(3.) P.W.10, on being informed about the registration of the crime over V.H.F., reached Palacode police station at 12.40 p.m., where he obtained a copy of the printed first information report. The accused was in the police lock-up and he was questioned. The officer then proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.5 and another, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.3. The body was taken out of the canal and a rough sketch, Ex.P.8, was prepared. The photographer, P.W.6, took photographs of the scene of occurrence and the dead body. The inquest was conducted between 3.00 a.m. and 6.15 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdars, during which, P.Ws.1, 2 and others were questioned and their statements were recorded. Ex.P.9 is the inquest report. After the inquest, a requisition, Ex.P.4, was issued to the doctor for conducting autopsy and the body was handed over to a police constable, P.W.8.