RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The sole accused, in a case of murder, on being found guilty by the Court of Sessions, Thiruvannamalai, in S. C. No. 34 of 1997, has brought forth this appeal, challenging the said judgment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: - i. P. Ws. 1, 3 and 7 are the residents of Malamanjanur. P. W. 4 belongs to Puliyampatti. P. W. 2 was the Village Administrative Officer of pudur Chekkadi village. THE deceased was the second wife of the accused/appellant. THE first marriage of the accused/appellant took place seven years prior to the occurrence and after one year, the first wife deserted the matrimonial home and went away. THEreafter, the accused/appellant married the deceased and was living with her. THE deceased came to know that the accused/appellant has got illicit intimacy with one Thanjiammal and hence, she questioned the accused. THE deceased also brought the said fact to the notice of the Panchayat President, P. W. 3, due to which, there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased. THE deceased also fell ill. One week prior to the date of occurrence, the wife of P. W. 1, took the deceased to Udaiyarkuppam, where she was given native treatment by P. W. 5. ii. A day prior to the date of occurrence, i. e. , on 26. 2. 1996, P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased came to Puliyampatti village on knowing about the ill-health of the deceased. P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased were telling her that they will be taking her for treatment the next day, since there was no bus facility that night. THEn, they stayed over there. On the next day morning at about 6. 00 a. m. , P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased heard the distressed cries of the deceased. THEy went into the house of the deceased and saw the accused/appellant pressing her chest with his leg and strangling her with a dhothi, M. O. 1. When P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased intervened, the accused/appellant fled away from the place. P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased went near the place and saw the dead body of the deceased. iii. THEreafter, P. W. 1 went to the Office of P. W. 2, the village Administrative officer, and gave a report under Ex. P-1. P. W. 2 also prepared a special report under Ex. P-2. Both were handed over to P. W. 10, Sub inspector of Police, Thani Padi Police Station, who was on duty at that time, based on which, a case in Crime No. 48 of 1996 was registered against the accused/appellant. Ex. P-9 is the copy of the printed first information report. THE express reports were sent to higher officials and to Court. iv. P. W. 11, Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the case and at 2. 00 p. m. on the same day, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar under Ex. P-3 and drew a rough sketch under Ex. P-10 mahazar. THE dead body of the deceased and the scene of occurrence were photographed. M. O. 2 series are the photographs. THE investigating officer conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared the inquest report under Ex. P-17 mahazar. Following the same, he issued a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy. v. On receipt of the requisition along with the dead body, p. W. 8, the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Thani Padi, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sengamalam and has given his certificate under Ex. P-9, wherein he has opined that death was due to asphyxia and death would have occurred about 24 to 28 hours prior to autopsy. vi. Pending investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused/appellant near Thani Padi Harur Main Road on 28. 2. 1996. He volunteered to give a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P-14 and pursuant to the same, the accused/appellant produced M. O. 1, dhothi, which was recovered under Ex. P-5 mahazar. THE accused was sent to Court for remand. THE material objects were subjected to chemical analysis and the reports were received by the Committal Court. vii. Further investigation was taken up by P. W. 12, the inspector of Police, Thandarampattu Police Station, who after examining the doctor and recording his statement, filed the final report against the appellant on 15. 1. 1997.

(3.) SECONDLY, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the medical evidence has thoroughly belied the case of the prosecution. According to the post-mortem doctor and the certificate produced by him under Ex. P-8, there was fracture of the hyoid bone, which was post-mortem in nature and hence, death could not have taken place in the manner put forth by the prosecution and thus, the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony, but on the contrary, it has belied the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit that P. W. 1 could not have been an eye witness to the occurrence. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that, the lower Court, without considering the above in the proper perspective, have found the accused guilty and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal in the hands of the Court.