CHINNA MATHURAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein who is the sole accused in S.C.No,244 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, stands convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: THE deceased Byramma is the wife of the accused. P.W.7 is their daughter. P.W.1 is the elder sister of the deceased and P.W.2 is their brother. P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased belong to Konmakkanapalli village. About 12 years prior to the occurrence, the deceased married the accused who is the resident of Mallibai Thotty village. P.W.1 had already married the brother of the accused and they were living in Mallibai Thotty and the house of P.W.1 was next to the accused. Due to wedlock, the deceased gave birth to a male and a female child. As the accused ill-treated the deceased, she had gone to her mother's place. THE accused had illicit intimacy with one lady by name Mallesamma. Again the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. As she conceived, she came to her parent's house and she delivered a male child. While the deceased was living with her husband she was driven to her parents' house. As the children had grown up, she went to Mallibai Thotty along with the father-in-law of P.W.1, one Murugesan and one Chengappan demanded a share in the properties of the accused. THE accused had refused to give the share, instead he said that he is prepared to live with the deceased. As such, the deceased stay in her matrimonial home with children and started living. THEn one day in the early morning hours, the accused wanted to take the deceased along with him for collecting tamarind. At that time, there was a quarrel between both of them. P.W.7 daughter of the deceased being awakened questioned that as to why they where going. On hearing the noise, P.W.1 who was lying on the pial of the house came out and questioned the accused and the deceased as to where they were going. THE accused had gone with the deceased and thereafter at about 9.00a.m., the accused alone returned home with a knife. P.W.1 enquired the accused about the deceased for which he replied that he did not know about her. As P.W.7 enquired her father, he had informed that the deceased had gone to her mother's place and she would return within two or three days. After five days, as P.W.1 again enquired the accused, the accused told her that he had committed the murder of his wife at Munikudikal and he also threatened her not to disclose this fact to anyone. THEreafter, P.W.1 informed about this to her brother Muniappan, her maternal uncle. THEn P.W.2 and others went in search of the body of the deceased found lying in the gap between the rocks at the depth of 15 feet at Munikudukal. On seeing the body, they could identify from the bangles, metti and clothes as that of deceased Byramma. P.W.1's brothers went to the police station and gave a complaint.

(3.) PW.8 , Dr. Pichai Thirumalai on receiving the body at 6.30a.m., held autopsy at 11.30a.m., and he noticed the following injuries: