VIJIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.109 of 2009 on 23.06.2011, convicting the appellant/accused for offences u/s.302 and 201 r/w 302 IPC and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo a further period of 5 months S.I., for offence u/s.302 IPC and 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d.1 month R.I. for offence u/s.201 r/w 302 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/A1 is the wife of the deceased. There was an illicit relationship between A1 and A2. On 29.07.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., while the accused were in the plantain garden, the deceased questioned them, owing to which A2 attacked him on his head using a spade. When the deceased was in an unconscious stage, A1 and A2 immersed his head in the ground level water tank, made him to suffocate and thereby caused his death. In order to screen the offence, they put the body of the deceased into the water tank and closed the same by a cement lid. Then nine days of the occurrence, on 07.08.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., A1 went to the office of PW-1, Village Administrative Officer, and gave extra judicial confession [Ex.P1], who in turn produced A1 before PW-12, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandikuppam Police Station, and also handed over Ex.P1 to him. PW-12, on the basis of Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.325 of 2008 for offences punishable u/s.302 and 201 IPC on 07.08.2008 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, under Ex.P18. PW-13, Inspector of Police, Burgur Circle, took up the investigation on the same day. He took A1 into custody, then went to the scene of crime at about 11.00 a.m. on the said date, prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P3] and rough sketch [Ex.P19] in the presence of PW-1 and another. In the presence of witnesses and panchayatdhars, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. The inquest report is Ex.P20. He handed over the body of the deceased to the Head Constable. Since the body was in a decomposed state, he requested the Doctor to conduct post mortem at the scene of crime itself and accordingly, the same was conducted. The post mortem report reads thus:

(3.) In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Ex.P1 to P20 and MOs.1 to 7. No one was examined on the side of the defence and no exhibits were marked. On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution evidence against them.