RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Radhakrishnan was tried in S.C. 52 of 1983 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. In that he is said to have caused the death of his wife Pawn Packiam on 4.9.1982 at about 4.30 A.M. by throwing M.O. I, the grinding stone on her head, which ultimately resulted in her death at 2.30 A.M. on 5.9.1982 at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

(2.) The trial Court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(3.) The deceased Pawn Packiam is the daughter of P.W. 4 and she and the appellant were married about 13 years prior to the occurrence and they have two children by this wedlock. The appellant was employed in the Pandian Mill. About nine months prior to the occurrence, on one night, when the appellant returned home, he found his wife in the company of P.W. 5. This led to disputes between the husband and the wife, necessitating the deceased taking shelter in the house of her father, P.W.4. The conduct of the deceased at that point of time was informed by the appellant to P.W. 7. During that incident, while running away from the scene, P.W. 5 Ramar had even bitten the hand of the appellant and ran away. In pursuance of the conduct of the deceased, noticed by the appellant, he issued Ex. P. 5 a notice through his lawyer, P.W. 9, to the deceased, calling upon her to agree for a mutual divorce, in view of her conduct in having illicit relationship with P.W. 5, Ramar. A reply was sent by the deceased through her lawyer, P.W, 12 and that has been marked as Ex. P. 10 in this case. The deceased had stated therein that she was not liable to be divorced and she had denied the allegations made in Ex. P 5. The appellant had given a complaint, then against his wife on 24.12.1981 to the B-6 Police Station, which has been marked as Ex. P. 19 in this case. In Ex. P. 19, the appellant has alleged his having seen his wife and P.W. 5 together and has added therein that both of them had such illicit contact for quite a considerable length of time. P.W. 18, the Inspector of Police enquired the appellant, the deceased and P.W. 5 and noticing that the dispute was civil in nature, directed them to take recourse in a Court of law. The endorsement has been marked as Ex. P. 20. P.W. 4, the father of the deceased also admits that his daughter, the deceased had come to his house since she was sent away by the appellant in view of her illicit connection with P.W. 5.