MADHIAZHAGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.35 of 2010, on the file of the Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 452, 302, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code; the second accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 452, 302 r/w.34 and Section 201 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 27.9.2011, the trial Court convicted them on all the charges and sentenced both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the second accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Lakshmi. P.W.1 is her husband. P.W.1 was doing tender coconut business at Kizhambi Road Junction in Perumbulipakkam Village. The accused also were doing the same business. In such a way, the accused 1 and 2 had become the friends of P.W.1 and they used to visit his house. In course of time, the accused developed a desire to have illicit intimacy with the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. On 23.1.2009, P.W.1, early in the morning, had gone to his business place. Their son had gone to school. The deceased, after some time, went to the business place of P.W.1, received Rs.20/ - for the purpose of taking tea and returned home. While she was so alone at her house, it is alleged that these two accused came to her house and extended sexual overtures towards her. But she did not consent for the same. She resisted and told that she would expose them. The accused enraged over the same. Therefore, they attacked the deceased with wooden log and as a result, she died. Then they dragged the dead body and dropped the same into a well. P.W1's son, who returned from the school in the evening on the day of occurrence, on noticing his mother not found at home, went to the place of P.W.1 and informed him. Then P.W.1 and his son went in search of the deceased. But they were not able to find her anywhere. Therefore, P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint.

(3.) P.W.15, who was the then Sub Inspector at Vishnu Kanchi Police station, received a complaint at 11.00 a.m. on 24.1.2009 and registered a case for woman missing in Crime No.25 of 2009. Ex.P16 is the FIR and Ex.P1 is the complaint. Then he forwarded the documents to Court and took up the case for investigation. When he went near the place of occurrence, he found blood stains on the earth near the well. There were also blood stains on the pipe attached to the motor. Therefore, he suspected some foul play. So, he engaged three local villagers to climb down into the well to search for the deceased. Accordingly, the dead body was found inside the well immersed in water. The body was lifted out of the well. P.W.15 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch regarding the place of occurrence. He altered the case into one for suspicious death. He handed over the case diary to the Inspector, for investigation.