MANICKAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is A1 in S.C.No.23/2000 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions-Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. He was tried in that case along with one other person arrayed as A2. THE charge against A1 is under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and the charge against A2 in under sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 I.P.C. THE learned trial Judge found A1 alone guilty and convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder together with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, carrying a default sentence. For the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., the learned Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, carrying a default sentence. A2 was acquitted. THE State had not challenged that portion of the judgment acquitting A2. Heard N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and V.M.R. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, at 12.00 in the night namely, on the intervening night of 31.12.1998 and 1.1.1999 (charge is not very clear), A1 killed his wife by strangulating her neck in his house and at that time A2 caught hold of the legs of Banumathi (since deceased) so as to enable A1 to complete the task. After the crime, to screen the offence, they poured petrol on the deceased; burnt her and then threw her body in a well situated in the lands belonging to one Raji. In support of their case, the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 22, besides marking Exs. P.1 to P.22 and exhibiting M.Os. 1 and 2. THE defence did not bring in any oral evidence. However, they have marked Ex. D.1, the marriage invitation of A1 and Banumathi (since deceased). P.W.1 is the mother of Banumahti (since deceased). Banumathi was given in marriage to A1 on 11.9.1991. A2 is the cousin brother of A1. P.W.1 is residing at Chinnalampatti. While A1 was living with his wife at Vedapatti, A2 was also staying with them and was having a motor cycle workshop. A1 and the deceased had a three year old male child named Manikandan. THE deceased was complaining to P.W.1 that her mother-in-law is torturing her stating that she ought to have given her son A1 in marriage only to her grand-daughter Deepa and they have made a wrong choice in getting A1 married to the deceased. She also complained to P.W.1 that A1 also was saying like that often. A1 asked his wife to bring a sum of Rs.1,000/- which P.W.1 mobilised by selling her jewels, P.W.2 and A2 told her that her daughter (since deceased) had fallen in to the well. Sending information to her son at Bangalore, she went to the occurrence village and to the well in the house of P.W.8. No body was floating in the well. She came to know that her daughter was burnt and then thrown into the well. Three days after the occurrence, the dead body was found floating, which she identified as that of her daughter. Body was found burnt. THE denture was not there. Face was fully burnt. THEn, in the company of P.W.3 (Village Leader), she went to the Investigating Police Station, where she lodged the complaint attested by P.W.3. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint. She was examined by the Police as well as by the Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.22).

(3.) P.W.2, examined to prove that the accused told him that Banumathi self-immolated her and then on her own fell into the well, turned hostile. We went through his entire evidence and we are of the opinion that his evidence is of no use either to the State or to the defence. P.W.3 is the Panchayat President. He knows the accused as well as deceased. He knows P.W.1 also. On 2.1.1999, he received an information that Banumathi, by pouring kerosene on herself, set fire to her and then fell into the well. He received the news on that night itself. P.W.1 also came and told him about the occurrence. When they went to the well, they found the body immersed. Third day after the occurrence, the body started floating. P.W.1 identified the dead body as that of her daughter. As requested by P.W.1, he accompanied her to the police station, where P.W.1 gave the complaint. He attested that complaint and that signature is Ex.P.2. P.W.4 is the elder sister of the deceased. A2 is the cousin of A1. She knows the accused. Banumathi used to tell her that A1 was pestering for a second marriage and was asking her consent, for which she did not agree. The deceased was also complaining to her that she was subjected to cruelty in the context of dowry demand and that her mother-in-law was always saying that she had made a wrong choice of getting her son married to the deceased instead of her grand-daughter Deepa. The deceased also told her that A1 asked her to give way for his second married life. On coming to know about the occurrence, she went to the village where she did not find any one in the house of A1. They could not also find the dead body in any well. P.W.3 was also there. P.Ws. 1 and 3 went to the police station and gave the complaint. That complaint was given only after the dead body was seen floating. Stones were found tied on the body. P.W.5 is the niece of P.W.1. She knows all the parties. The deceased used to tell her that A1 was always pestering her to get dowry from her mother's house and many times, P.W.1 had sent money. P.W.5 advised the deceased to live with her husband. When A1 suffered a fracture, P.W.1 gave him a sum of Rs.1,000/-. But, however, he was pestering for more money. On the 2nd of January 1999, she came to know that her sister (Banumathi) self-immolated her and then fell into a well. When she went to the village, she found P.W.1 and others and they were talking that somebody had poured petrol on Banumahti, burnt her and then pushed her into the well. P.W.6 is residing at Chinnalampalli. She knows the prosecution witnesses; the accused and the deceased. Banumathi, picking up a quarrel with her husband (A1), often used to go to her house and say that she is being tortured for dowry and in that context she was being beaten. She also told P.W.6 that since no dowry was given, A1 was threatening to marry another girl. On 2.1.1999, she received an information that Banumathi, after self-immolating her, fell into a well. When she went to the village, she heard people talking that both the accused have burnt Banumathi and then pushed her into the well. P.W.7 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar. P.W.8, examined to prove the retrieval of the dead body from the well and what he heard in the village, turned hostile. We went through his entire evidence and it is of no use either to the State or to the defence. P.W.9, examined to prove the demand for dowry and what he heard in the village after the occurrence, turned hostile. We went through his evidence in its entirety and we find that it is neither useful to the State nor to the defence. P.W.10, examined to prove Banumathi being subjected to cruelty in the context of dowry demand, also turned hostile. Her evidence is of no use either to the State or to the prosecution. P.W.11, examined to prove that A1 was threatening his wife that he is going to marry for the second time and the accused dragging Banumathi and pushing her into the well, turned hostile. Her evidence is also of no use either to the State or to the defence. P.W.12 and P.W.13, examined to prove that the accused dragged Banumathi and pushed her into the well and when asked, the accused criminally intimidated them, turned hostile. Their evidence is also of no use either to the State or to the defence.