JOHNSON @ JESU JHONSON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.128 of 2014, for charges under Section 302 and 302 r/w 201 IPC. The learned Trial Judge found that the appellant/accused guilty of the charges under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment; and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

(2.) The case against the accused/appellant is that, the deceased Saranya was the wife of the appellant and they lived separately as tenant in the upstairs of the house belonged to one Babu. The appellant often quarrelled with her wife in a drunken mood. On 25.01.2013, from the dawn itself, the appellant and his deceased wife were quarreling with each other and they were also warned by their house owner, namely Babu. After pacification, both of them went to their house at about 12.00 O' clock in the night. On 26.01.2013, at about 00.30 a.m. smoke emanated from the appellant's house and on noticing the same, the house owner and another person by name Muthuvel came out of their house. At that time the appellant, also came out of his house hurriedly and when the house owner and said named person enquired the appellant, the appellant replied that he done away his wife, since he has no peace at all in her existence. When both the house owner and Muthuvel entered into the house of appellant, they noticed that the deceased was burning and they tried to extinguish the fire, however, the deceased burnt completely. The Prosecution further alleged that during the course of heated arguments, the appellant dashed her wife's head into the wall and thus, murdered her. In order to screen the murder, the appellant set fire on her body. Thus, the accused was charged for the offences as stated above.

(3.) Before the trial court, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P23 and produced MOs1 to 11. On the side of the accused, neither any person was examined nor any document was marked.