SIVANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, dated 9. 8. 2007 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2007 convicting and sentencing the appellant/sole accused to life imprisonment for the offence of uxoricide.

(2.) THE charge against the appellant is that on 9. 1. 1994 at about 1. 30 a. m. , due to aversion, while the deceased, his wife Devaki, was sleeping in the house, strangulated her neck and caused her instantaneous death and thereby perpetrated an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C.

(3.) 5. 1. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by a complete chain of circumstances, without any missing links and hence, no interference is called for. 5. 2. Countering the argument with regard to the report of hyoid bone, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that absence of fracture on the hyoid bone itself would not lead to the conclusion that the deceased did not die of strangulation, as medical jurisprudence suggests that only in a fraction of such cases, a fracture of hyoid bone is found.