SUDALAIMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Tiruvallur, made in S.C.No.20 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) THE accused is the husband of the deceased Thirumaniselvi. P.W.1 is the son and P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased while P.W.8 is her younger sister. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. Suspecting the fidelity of his wife, the accused was often quarrelling with her and even tortured her. On the date of occurrence i.e., 8.11.2004, as usual, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused at about 9.00 P.M. Following the same, the accused dashed her head against the wall and caused her death. P.W.1 was the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. At the time of occurrence, the deceased asked P.W.1 to go and inform to the uncle. When P.W.1 came out of the house, the accused bolted the house and left the place. P.W.5 is the neighbour of the accused, and he was able to hear the noise coming from the house of the accused at the time of occurrence. He also witnessed the accused leaving the house after bolting outside. Next morning also, it was found locked. (b) On 9.11.2004, the deceased did not come to the house of P.W.3, and hence P.W.3 as usual came to visit the house of the deceased. She opened the door and found the dead body of the deceased. One Jayaraman, the brother of the deceased proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, which is marked as Ex.P7. On the strength of Ex.P7, a case came to be registered in Crime No.905 of 2004 under Sec.302 of IPC. THE printed FIR Ex.P8, was despatched to the Court. (c) P.W.12 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P1, and also a rough sketch, E.P10. He also conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P9. THEn, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy. (d) P.W.11, the Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Kilpauk Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Thirumaniselvi and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P4, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation about 30 to 36 hours prior to postmortem. (e) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 15.11.2004 at 5.30 P.M. when he volunteered to give a confessional statement which was recorded. No incriminating material was found, and he was sent for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) THE learned Counsel would further add that the medical opinion canvassed also did not support the prosecution that according to the postmortem Doctor, the death would have been caused between 30 and 36 hours prior to autopsy and that if to be so, the occurrence should have taken place in the day hours of 8.11.2004 and could not have been between 9.00 P.M. and 10.00 P.M. as alleged by the prosecution.