STATE Vs. MARUTHAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS/accused viz. , Maruthamuthu and Selvaraj have been tried for the charges under sections 302, 404 IPC , section 302 read with section 109 IPC , section 404 read with section 109 IPC and section 413 IPC and acquitted from all the charges by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial magistrate, Perambalur in S. C. No. 17 of 2001. Aggrieved against such acquittal, the State/public Prosecutor has filed this appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this appeal by the state/public Prosecutor can be stated as follows:- PW1 viz. , Muthuraj is the husband of the deceased Rajammal. They were living at Thuraimangalam village within the police limit of Perambalur. PW2 viz. , Ayyammal is also a resident of Thuraimangalam village and she has to go to her field through the field of Rajammal. On 4. 1. 1999, the deceased Rajammal went to her field for the purpose of washing clothes and irrigation. At 9. 30 am on the same day, PW2 while going to her field was able to see the deceased Rajammal washing her clothes and she had conversation with Rajammal for few minutes and came back to the house. At that time, PW2 was able to see the accused standing in the field of the deceased and nearby the well where the deceased was washing her clothes. Subsequently, at 12. 30 pm, one Duraisamy informed PW1, the husband of the deceased that Rajammal was floating in his well. On getting this information, PW1 rushed to the well along with PW3 viz. , one Prabu and one Balakumar and happened to see his wife floating in the well. Thereafter, PW1, with the help of pw3 and Balakumar , brought out the deceased from the well and found that jewels wore by the deceased were missing from the body of Rajammal and thereby suspected that somebody should have murdered his wife for want of jewels.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the counsel for respondents/accused, the accused Maruthamuthu , even though was arrested on 13. 6. 1999 by PW10, identification parade has been conducted by PW7 only on 13. 11. 1999 nearly after five months. It is also to be noted that in the meanwhile, remand period of the accused Maruthamuthu has been periodically extended and police custody also seems to have been taken. Further, the accused Maruthamuthu also seems to have made representation before PW7 that PW2 has already seen him and that section 161 statement of PW2 recorded by PW10 seems to have been sent to the concerned Judicial magistrate only on 4. 5. 2000 even though the same is said to have been recorded on 7. 1. 1999 itself. Therefore, counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would further contend that there is no cogent links or acceptable materials to establish that the accused Maruthamuthu alone could be the murderer as projected by the prosecution and that is why the trial Court has chosen to acquit the accused Maruthamuthu.