SIMSONYABEZ Vs. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.120 of 2018 dtd. 9/2/2021 by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai. The appellant was tried along with four others. The appellant was charged for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. He and the other accused (A2 to A5) were charged for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC. A2 to A5 were acquitted by the Trial Court.

(2.) (a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased got married 10 years prior to the occurrence. The appellant was in the habit of harassing the deceased often after intoxicating himself. On 25/12/2015, at about 08.00 p.m, the accused had mixed sleeping tablets in the Tea consumed by the deceased and at about 03.00 a.m, on 26/12/2015, he had caused the death of the deceased by smothering her with a pillow. Before that, he had caused injuries on the face, near the left eye, lips and chin of the deceased with fists. It is the further case of the prosecution that A2 to A5 had made it appear that it was a case of natural death and prepared the body of the deceased for funeral by washing it and changing the clothes on the deceased.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Investigation was conducted in a biased manner. The respondent ought to have informed the nearest Executive Magistrate under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C for holding an inquiry into the cause of death. He further submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased had consumed sleeping pills, since the medical evidence did not support the said version. Further, the evidence of Doctor that the deceased could have died due to smothering, is highly improbable and contrary to medical jurisprudence. The recovery of pillow and blood stained shirt also cannot be believed since the witnesses to the seizure had turned hostile. The Trial Court having disbelieved the evidence with regard to Sec. 201 IPC, ought to have acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC as well. The prosecution had not established the circumstances in a cogent manner and they do not point out to the guilt of the accused.