VEERAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT viz. , Veeramani is the first accused before the Trial Court in S. C. No. 116 of 2002 with conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/= and under section 201 IPC and sentence of three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/=.

(2.) BRIEF facts behind this appeal can be stated as follows:-The deceased is the wife of the appellant/a1 and her name is Arasilankumari. Their marriage was conducted about nine years back. After three years of the marriage, the appellant/a1 was having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and in that connection, panchayat was convened in the year 1999 and 2000 at the instance of PW3 Murugesan and others and even then there was no happy and amicable life between the appellant and the deceased Arasilankumari. Further, they were frequently quarreling with each other. While so, in the early morning on 20. 1. 2000, the appellant with the intention of murdering Arasilankumari, inserted a saree into her mouth and also by using the same saree, strangulated her and caused death of Arasilankumari and thereafter made Arasilankumari to hang upon the rafter of the house to make it appear as if arasilankumari herself committed suicide by hanging to screen the offence committed by the appellant. Thereupon, on information and knowledge about the occurrence, PW1 viz. , dharmalingam, father of Arasilankumari, PW2 viz. , Paramasivam, the paternal uncle''s son of pw1, PW3 Murugesan who was using to conduct panchayat and mediation between the husband and wife, PW4 Rathnammal, junior paternal aunt of the deceased Arasilankumari, pw5 Mohan relative of the deceased Arasilankumari came to the house of the appellant. On enquiry about the occurrence made by P. Ws. 1 to 3, the appellant/a1 gave extra judicial confession to them to the effect that it is he who caused the death of his wife Arasilankumari and made her to hang upon the rafter to make it appear as suicide. Thereupon, PW7 Annadurai and other witnesses came there. PW1 went to the police station and gave complaint marked as ex. P1 at about 10. 00 am and based upon the complaint, this case was registered by PW13 viz. , shanmugam, Sub Inspector of Police of Padalur Police Station and prepared the printed FIR marked as Ex. P14 and also arrested the appellant as well as other two accused viz. , his parents. Thereafter, PW12, Inspector of Police viz. , Murugesan, on receipt of information about the registration of this case, came to Padalur Police Station and received the FIR and proceeded to the appellant''s house and prepared observation mahazar marked as Ex. P3 and rough sketch marked as Ex. P8 and conducted inquest upon the dead body of Arasilankumari in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report marked as Ex. P9 and sent the body for post mortem through the Constable viz. , PW11 Periyasamy and examined some witnesses and made arrangements for taking photograph with the help of photographer viz. , pw9 Rajesh Kumar and recovered M. Os. 2 to 9 from the dead body and sent them to the magistrate along with the requisition for sending them for chemical analysis. PW10, dr. Mathialagan conducted post mortem upon the dead body of Arasilankumari and furnished post mortem report Ex. P5 along with his opinion that the said Arasilankumari should have died due to asphyxia. In continuation, he also examined some more witnesses and sent the requisition for sending the hyoid bone and viscera for chemical analysis and recovered the panchayat muchalika given by panchayatdars. Thereafter, PW14 another Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and also examined PW10 Dr. Mathialagan who conducted post mortem. Following that PW15, another Inspector of Police viz. , Kannan completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant as well as other accused, viz. , his parents.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the Trial Court, after examining P. Ws. 1 to 15 and marking of exs. P1 to P14 and M. Os. 1 to 9, examined the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. , but, the accused denied their complicity in the offence and the appellant has stated that his wife arasilankumari committed suicide by hanging in his house and however, the father of the deceased Arasilankumari and her relatives have implicated him and his parents falsely in this case and pleaded innocence.