RAJAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Divison in S. C. No. 157 of 1996, the appellant, who is the sole accused in a case of murder has brought forth the present appeal.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:-P. W. 3, Ponnusamy and his wife Muthammal were residents of Manupati village. Their daughter, Annammal, the deceased, was given in marriage to the appellant about 20 years back, and they gave birth to P. W. 4, Selvi Kaleeswari and two sons, Bharatharaman and Veeraswamy. The appellant/accused and the deceased, along with their children, were living in a thatched shed owned by the accused in Parthasarathipuram. The deceased, her husband/appellant, P. W. 4 and the mother of the deceased went to P. W. 10, an Astrologer, to see whether the horoscope of P. W. 4 was in match with one Nambirajan, a nephew of the appellant. The Astrologer found it to be all right and he informed them to go ahead with marriage. Even then, in the house of P. W. 10, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. P. W. 10 intervened and pacified them. After that incident, P. Ws. 5 and 7 who were cousin brothers of the deceased, came to the village for making a demand of handloan. The deceased informed to P. W. 7 that she would pay the amount later and informed that she would give her daughter, P. W. 4 in marriage to P. W. 7. At that time the appellant intervened to say that P. W. 4 should be given in marriage to Nambirajan, his nephew and none else. There arose a quarrel on that account. P. W. 7 pacified them and left the place. On that day, i. e. on the day of occurrence, at about 3. 30 p. m. , the deceased and appellant sent their three children to Manupatti to their grandmother's house by handing over Rs. 100/- to P. W. 4. Thus at the night of the day of occurrence, the husband and wife, viz. , the deceased and the accused, were staying in the house. Next day morning, at about 4. 45 a. m. , when P. W. 8, the milk vendor, went across the house of the deceased, he found the accused standing near his thatched shed. On seeing P. W. 8, the accused asked his torch light which he was having in his hand, but he refused. P. W. 8 took the accused to his thatched shed in the light of the torch light and in the thatched shed of the accused, P. W. 8 saw the deceased Annammal lying dead. P. W. 8 asked the accused as to what had happened, but the accused was weeping without telling anything to P. W. 8. P. W. 8 went to Co-operative society as the milk van arrived at that time. P. Ws. 3,4,5 and 7 were informed about the death of the deceased in the morning of 15. 7. 1994. They reached the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Annammal. That time, the appellant/accused went to the police station and gave a complaint stating that his wife Annammal had died after consuming poison for herself. P. W. 12, the Head Constable attached to Komaralingam Police Station received the said complaint which is marked as Ex. P6. On the strength of Ex. P6, P. W. 12, registered a case in Crime No. 140/94 for offence under section 174 Cr. P. C. and prepared First Information Report, Ex. P17. He despatched the copy of the FIR to the Court as well as to the Tahsildar, Udumalpet. P. W. 12, who took up investigation, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar under Ex. P4 and prepared a rough sketch, Ex. P8. He recovered material objects under a mahazar. He also conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses. Ex. P9 is the inquest report. He forwarded a requisition to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, P. W. 6, a doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet conducted autopsy on the dead body of Annammal and found the following injuries:-

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 12 exhibits and 4 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. Neither defence witness was examined nor any document was marked on his side.