RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused appeals.

(2.) THE case, as projected by the prosecution, can be summarised as follows: (a) THE accused is the husband of the deceased Shanthi. THEy got married about ten years prior to the occurrence. THEy were blessed with two children, one boy and one girl. THE accused was eking his livelihood by selling aluminimum and eversilver utensils. About three months prior to the occurrence the accused was annoying his wife Shanthi with demand of money. P.W.1 younger brother of Shanthi, got her property mortgaged and gave Rs.1,000 to Shanthi. THEre was again another demand of money by the accused. P.W.1 got from the same mortgagee an additional amount of Rs.1,500 and gave it to the accused. After spending away that amount, the accused again asked for money. THEn P.W.1 arranged for the sale of the property to the mortgagee himself and gave Rs.4,000 to his sister Shanthi and the balance to the accused for the purpose of his business. THE amount of Rs.4,000 was remitted back by Shanthi to P.W.1 to enable the latter to open a shop, (b) THE accused, without informing Shanthi, contracted a second marriage with one Thamarai of Thiruvamur, a village which is not far away from the village, where the accused and Shanthi were living. P.W.1 who made enquiry about the second marriage. He alone scolded the accused, altercation ensued and people present there pacified P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.1 sent a letter to his elder brother, Natarajan, informing about the second marriage of the accused. He came to the village within two days that is, three days prior to the occurrence, (c) Shanthi questioned the accused about the second marriage. Whenever she raised that question, the accused used to beat her and used to say �I will be happy only after your death�, (d) On 1.3.1983 at about 8.30 P.M., after sending to bed the children, Shanthi also went to bed. THE accused was on his cot. Shanthi raised the question as to where he has been and she was insulted by her husband then the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. She came out of the house and was proceeding to the house of her sister, Malliga, which was the next house. But, she could not reach her house and she fell down. THEn sand and water were poured on her, she was taken to the hospital in a taxi, (e) An intimation was sent by P.W.5, the doctor who admitted her in the hospital, to P.W.9 Constable of the outpost police station of the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore. On receipt of that intimation, P.W.9 came to see Shanthi at about 11.15 P.M., and she gave the complaint, Ex.P10 which is the F.I.R. in this case. Upon receipt of Ex.P10, P.W.11 the Sub Inspector of Police", Panruti Police Station registered a case in Crime No.129 of 1983, for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., against the accused. THEn P.W.11 proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement, Ex.P12 from Shanthi. (f) On the next day, at 6.45 A.M., the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, P.W.8 recorded the dying declaration of Shanthi, which is Ex.P8. At about 10.30 P.M. Shanthi passed away. Ex.P5 intimation was sent by P.W.6 doctor, to P.W.9 Constable of the outpost police station, who in turn sent the intimation to P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, who altered the case from Secs.307 to 302, I.P.C. and sent express F.I.Rs. to the authorities concerned. Upon receipt of the report, Ex.P13, P.W.12 Inspector of Police, proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 3.3.1983 at 7.30 P.M., and continued the investigation so far conducted by P.W.11. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at the hospital, Ex.P14 is the inquest report. P.W.7 doctor conducted autopsy. Ex.P7 is the post-mortem certificate, (g) THE accused surrendered on 5.3.1983 before the Magistrate�s Court in Cuddalore. Upon completion of the investigation, P.W.12 was of the opinion that the accused appeared to have committed an offence of murder in respect of his wife Shanthi, and filed a report to that effect under Sec.173, Crl.P.C.

(3.) THE case of the appellant is that the prosecution has not proved satisfactorily the guilt of the accused and that the finding of the trial Court was not sustainable. THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on his side contended that there was adequate evidence in the present case. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence by both of them.