KANAKARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who in this judgment will be referred to as the accused was tried before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in S.C. No. 116 of 1999, for an offence of murder as well as under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe T(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thy allegation against him in the said charge is that at 1.00 p.m. on 18/3/1998 he murdered Kiuuppayee his concubine, by strangling her neck. The learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting him under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, which is being challenged in the above appeal.

(2.) The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows: P.W. 4 is the mother of the deceased and she was residing at Basavannapuram. The deceased was given in marriage to Palanisamy about 25 years prior to the date of incident and two children were born. The accused was doing textile business at Madurai and he developed intimacy with the deceased. Karuppayee. On account of this the husband of the deceased Palanisamy, left her and married another woman and later. Karuppciyee started living with the accused. She also joined the accused in textile business and both of them used to carry clothes on their heads visit villages and sell the materials. After sometime quarrels arose between the deceased and the accused and the deceased always used to complain to the accused that on account of her relationship. With him her husband has left her and was also accusing the accused of having intimacy with another woman. The deceased and the accused later took up residence at Basavannapuram and P.W. 4 was staying with them. The brother of the deceased Madhappan was informed about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased by P.W. 4; but he did not evince any interest in interfering and settling the dispute. While the matters stood thus on 18/3/1998, the accused and the deceased left Basavannapuram each carrying a cloth bundle on their heads for the purpose of selling them. Thereafter the deceased was not seen alive by P.W. 4.

(3.) The deceased and the accused alter leaving the village boarded a bus and alighted at Anaikkari. P.W. 2, who was eking his livelihood by grazing cattle, finding that a calf is missing. Searched for it and unable to trace it, boarded the same bus in which the deceased and the accused were travelling. He alighted at Anaikkari with a view to search for the calf. The accused and the deceased questioned P.W. 2 as to where he is proceeding and P.W. 2 informed them that he is proceeding to Mosalamadu. They expressed their desire to go to Mosalamadu and accordingly, all the three went to Mosalamadu. At Mosalamadu they met P.W. 3 in her house and the accused and the deceased attempted to sell a saree of her; but P.W. 3 was not willing to buy saree from the accused and the deceased and sent them away. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by any one. At about 4.00 p.m. on 18/3/1998. P.W. 1, a contractor by profession and a resident of Mosalamadu was returning to his village after purchasing provisions at Kurumbur. While he reached Arayankadavu channel near the village at about 5.00 p.m. he saw the accused climbing the slope and going away from the place. P.W. 1 in order to ease himself climbed down the slope and to his shock found a dead body of a woman lying naked. He could not identify the woman. He, immediately left for Kurumbur and informed Mani son of a former Village Munsif. The said Mani advised P.W. 1 that they can go to the scene of occurrence on the next day since the sun had set in. At about 7.00 a.m. on the next day, P.W. 1 went to the place, where he found the dead body and also noticed several other villagers around the dead body. In the meantime the information was received by P.W. 4. the mother that her daughter is lying dead near Mosalamadu and she also went there where she found the dead body of her daughter. She informed the villagers that the body is that of her daughter. P.W. 1 left the scene of occurrence and met P.W. 6. the Village Administrative Officer to whom he narrated the incident. The said statement of P.W. 1 was reduced into writing by P.W. 6 and the same is Ex. P.1. P.W. 6. thereafter, proceeded to Kadambur Police Station and handed over Ex. P.1 with his endorsement Ex. P.2 to P.W. 12 the Head Constable at 4.30 p.m. P.W. 12 on the basis of Ex. P .1 registered a case in Crime No. 17 of 1998 under Section 302 IPC. by preparing express reports. Ex. P: 16 is a copy of the printed first information report. Investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W. 15. Inspector of Police, Bangalapudur Circle P.W. 15 on taking up investigation in the crime reached the scence of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 20/3/1998 and in the presence of witnesses prepared an observation mahazar. Ex. P.3. He drew a rough sketch. Ex. P.19. The scene of occurrence was caused to be photographed. The inquest was conducted and at the time of inquest witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Ex. P.20 is the inquest report. He handed over the body to P.W. 13 a Police Constable with a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy.