KUMAR Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 21.12.2010 made in S.C.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(2) of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was having illicit illegal intimacy with the deceased Umamageswari @ Manjula and used to demand money from her for consuming liquor. The deceased also used to quarrel with the accused, when the accused demanded money for consuming liquor. As such, the accused has developed enmity towards the deceased. On 15.11.2016, at about 10.00 a.m near the well and pump set in the agricultural field in Survey No.164/1 at Paraniputhur Village, the accused had taken the deceased to have sexual inter-course and when the deceased assaulted the accused on his lower lip, with regard to demand of money by the accused, as such, the accused with an intention to cause death of Manjula forcibly by hitting with his hands on the deceased's chest and pushed her from the pump set and she fell into the well of the agricultural land. As a result of injury and drowning, the said Manjula died. On 17.11.2006, the brother of the accused Arumugam has come to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and informed that the deceased body was found in the well. Thereafter, P.W.1, son of the deceased, lodged a complaint before P.W.10 at 11.00 a.m. and the same was registered in Crime No.678 of 2006 under Section 174 of Cr.PC. The said F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, P.W.13 the Investigation Officer took up the entire investigation and altered the F.I.R from Section 174 of Cr.P.C to 302 of IPC on 20.11.2006. After completing the investigation, the Investigation Officer has perused all the files relating to the said crime and laid the final report.

(3.) The Trial Court framed charges and questioned the accused and he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17 and also produced M.Os.1 to 5.