THANGARASU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.C. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, has preferred this appeal from jail, challenging the legality and correctness of his conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused was tried for the offence of murder on the allegation that on 6.5.1983 at about 10 P.M. he strangulated his wife Susila and caused her death. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. I to 11, filed Exs.P.lto 7 and maked M.Os.1 to 16.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence is briefly as follows:

(3.) On the day of occurrence, P.W. 1 had been to Yanaikalpatti in connection with distribution of clothes to poor people by the Government. At about 10 P.M. his son Subramaniam came and informed him that the accused strangulated his wife Susila and killed her. Hearing the information P.W. 1 came to Nagayanallur. He saw the body of the deceased near the tank at kokkikal, about 2 furlongs east of the village. By the side of the body, the parents of the accused as well as his wife were weeping. We went to Kattupudur police station and reported the matter to police at about 7 A.M. His complaint was reduced, into writing. It is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.10, the then Sub- Inspector, recorded the statement and registered a case in Crime No. 5.4 of 1983 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He prepared first information report with copies thereof and sent them to the higher officials and court. He informed the same to the Inspector, P.W. 11. P.W. 11 got a copy of the first information report at 8.30 A.M. and he reached the scene at about 9.10 A.M. He inspected the scene, prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 4 and drew the rough sketch Ex. P. 6 in the presence of witnesses. He seized M.O.1 ribbon, M.O. 2 broken pieces of bangles and M.O. 3 broken pieces of bangles in the presence of witnesses under cover of mahazar. Between 10 A.M. and 11.30 A.M. he held inquest over the, dead body and prepared the inquest report Ex. P. 7, After completing the inquest, he handed over the dead body with a requisition, to P.W. 9 for being taken to the medical officer for post-mortem examination. He caused photos of the scene place to be taken through the photographer P.W. 8. M.O. 7 series are the negatives and M.O. 8 series arc the photos. It is the evidence of P.W. 8 that on 6.5.1983 at 7 P.M. the accused and the deceased came to his photo studio and they jointly took photo. The photo is marked as M.O. 6.