SURESH ALIAS SANKAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal, on an allegation that at about 11. 00 a. m. on 26. 1. 2000, he strangled his wife Latha, who was pregnant by five months, to death. The learned Sessions Judge, finding the appellant guilty, sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is this: Baby (PW-1) is the sister of the deceased Latha and the deceased is the wife of the appellant. The appellant married the deceased Latha in the year 1999 and after the marriage, they were residing together in a portion of the house at No. 18, Gnanaprakasam Street, Karaikal, owned by Therasa (PW-2 ). PW-1 was living in another locality and working as servant-maid in the house of a soda-factory owner. After the marriage, the deceased was not visiting PW-1 though she used to visit her at the work-spot. On 26. 1. 2000, PW-2 heard the appellant scolding his wife for not giving him money. After getting some money from his wife, he went to a tea-stall, had tea and returned home. At about 3. 00 p. m. the appellant went to the house of Pramila (PW-3), who was known to the appellant and his wife, and informed her that his wife was suffering from vomiting and dysentery and requested her to come and see his wife. PW-3 accompanied the appellant to his house. When she reached the house of the appellant, she found the deceased Latha lying on the floor, with inner skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. When she touched the body, she felt chillness and there was no response. She questioned the appellant as to what he had done to his wife for which, the appellant replied that Latha was suffering from vomiting and dysentery. Sensing that the appellant had done something to his wire, she scolded him and left the place. Thereafter, the appellant went to the work-spot of PW-1 at about 4. 00 p. m. and informed her that his wife is lying unconscious and requested her to come to his house. PW-1 sent away the appellant telling him that she would come to his house some time later. After some time PW-1 left her work-spot to the house of the appellant and when she reached, she saw PW-3 and others standing in front of the house. She went inside the house and saw Latha lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. She also found the broken pieces of bangles and cigarette-buds near the deceased. When she touched the body, she sensed the chillness. She screamed against the appellant as to what he had done to her sister. The appellant did not answer her. She asked the appellant to bring an auto. PW-1, along with PW-3, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karaikkal where, on being examined by the Doctor (PW-8) at about 4. 15 p. m. , she was pronounced dead. PW-8 sent Ex. P8 information to the police station. On receipt of Ex. P-8 at about 5. 20 p. m. , the Head Constable (PW-15) attached to the Karaikkal Town Police Station proceeded to the hospital along with the Sub Inspector of Police (PW16 ). On reaching the hospital, they saw PW-1 there and PW-16 questioned PW-1 and recorded her statement (Ex. P-1 ). Thereafter, PW-15 and PW-16 returned to the police station at about 7. 30 p. m. and registered a case in Crime No. 31 of 2000 against the appellant under Sec. 302, IPC. Ex. P-22 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. The express report was despatched to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Thereafter, PW-16 sent the information over telephone to the Inspector of Police (PW-17 ). On receipt of the information, PW-17 went to the police station where he obtained the copy of the printed first information report. He left the police station, accompanied by PW-15, PW-16 and other constables, to the hospital where he saw the dead-body of Latha and arranged a photographer for taking photographs of the dead-body. He went to the scene of occurrence and since it was late-night he posted two constables to guard the scene of occurrence and returned to the police station. In the police station, he examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 27. 1. 2000 he again visited the scene of occurrence and took photographs of the scene of occurrence through photogra-pher (PW-14) between 8. 30 a. m. and 8. 45 a. m. He then prepared the rough-sketch and observation-mahazar between 8. 50 p. m. to 9. 50 p. m. He seized the material object (MO-18) under mahazar in presence of the witnesses. He questioned some witnesses and their statements were recorded. As the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, PW-17 issued a requisition to the Tasildhar (PW-12) for conducting an enquiry. On receipt of the requisition, PW-12 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and questioned witnesses and gave his report Ex. P-17 with his opinion that the death has occurred under suspicious circumstances. PW-17 conducted the inquest in the presence of witnesses between 1 p. m. and 4 p. m. and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex. P-5 ). After inquest, he issued a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body of Latha. The Civil Surgeon (PW-10), attached to the Government Hospital, Karaikkal, on receipt of requisition from PW-17, conducted autopsy and found the following injuries on the dead body:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appe-Ilant submits that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is duty-bound to establish all the links in the chain of, circumstances and the prosecution having failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, an acquittal.