MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for 3 counts and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence under each count. THE sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) AS per the charge framed against the appellant, it is alleged that on 22.5.2003 at 7.30 a.m., the accused committed the death of the deceased, who is the wife of P.W.1 by strangulation. Thereafter, on the same day, at 4.30 p.m., committed the death of his two children by administering Gramoxone pesticide and thereby, committed the offence of murder under three counts. The accused was questioned initially, but he has denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up by the Court of Sessions. The prosecution, to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.1 to 33 and produced M.Os.1 to 11. 3.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the first part of the occurrence, viz., killing of the wife of P.W.1 has been established not only through the motive put forth by the prosecution, but also through the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. They are natural witnesses and they do not have any axe to grind against the accused. P.W.4 speaks about the presence of the accused on the day of occurrence in the morning as well as on the previous night. For the presence of the accused in front of the residence of P.W.1, it has been corroborated through the evidence of P.W.2, who is none other than the wife of the accused. Under normal circumstances, a wife will not support a prosecution against her husband and she may support the version of the prosecution though she would not divulge in full. But, in the case on hand, P.W.2 has given materials for the commission of offence in both the places. The extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.2 cannot be easily brushed aside. It is P.W.2, who ascertained the death of the deceased Lakshmi, wife of P.W.1 and after sending P.W.2 to the residence of P.W.1, the accused committed the death of his children by administering pesticide in her absence. She came to know about the death of her children only on returning back and at the time when she questioned the accused, the accused confessed that it was he, who killed the children due to the pressure of non-payment of debts. Immediately P.W.2 cried and a crowd collected, which attracted the notice of P.W.3 also. Even with whom, the accused confessed and it is P.W.3, who reported the occurrence to the police by taking the accused along with him. Through the medical officers, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased, wife of P.W.1, was due to homicidal violence and the death of two children of the accused was due to pesticide poisoning. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and in view of the reason that he has committed triple murder, it is a fit case where the trial Court has convicted the appellant by imposing imprisonment for life thrice and it is also submitted that it is a fit case where the sentences must run consecutively.