CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Salem, made in S. C. No. 13 of 2008, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Z I. P. C. and awarded the life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) SHORT facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, can be stated thus: (a) P. W. 1 is the native of Ulipuram, Anna Nagar. P. w. 2 is the second daughter of P. W. 1 and her first daughter Rajeswari was given in marriage to the appellant and they got two children, one female and one male. The accused used to humiliate and torture Rajeswari all along and that she used to come to the parental home since she could not tolerate the torture and the accused used to bring her back to his house. Just few days prior to the occurrence, she came to the house of P. W. 1 and was staying there. (b) On 21. 05. 2007, the accused also came to the house of P. W. 1 and after the dinner, the accused and his wife rajeswari went to the pooja room to sleep. P. W. 2 along with the child of the deceased, was in the next room abutting the pooja room. P. W. 1 accompanied with her husband went to her brother's house for the night stay. At about 2. 30 AM, the child of the deceased woke up and cried. Immediately P. W. 2 took the child and went inside the room, where the deceased was sleeping with the accused. At that time, she found that the accused was throttling the neck of Rajeswari. Immediately she raised an alarm and found the accused running near the pipeline. P. W. 1 and others immediately rushed to the home and found the dead body of the deceased. (c) P. W. 1 went to the respondent Police Station at about 4. 30 AM where p. W. 8, Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty and gave complaint Ex. P-1 and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 171 of 2007 under section 302 IPC and express F. I. R. was despatched to the Court. (d) P. W. 9, the inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of FIR Ex. P-8, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection, prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P-2 and also rough sketch Ex. P-9. Then, the investigator conducted an inquest on the dead body of rajeswari in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and Ex. P-10 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of post-mortem along with his requisition. (e) On receipt of the said requisition, P. W. 6, doctor attached to the Attur Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rajeswari and gave a post-mortem certificate, ex. P-5, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to Asphyxia due to strangulation. (f) Pending investigation, on 21. 05. 2007, the accused was arrested and he came forward to give a confessional statement and the same was recorded. Pursuant to which, he produced M. O. 1 Nylon thread, which was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-3 and he was sent for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, P. W. 9 filed the final report against the accused under section 302 I. P. C. (g) The case was committed to the court of Session, Salem and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and also relied on 14 exhibits and 5 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials. On doing so, the trial Judge took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant/accused guilty and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the occurrence had taken place during the night hours; that when there was no light facility, P. W. 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that so far as the other witnesses are concerned, P. W. 1 categorically admitted that she came to the occurrence spot after the occurrence was over and hence, the evidence of P. w. 1 could not be relied upon for any purpose; that the evidence of P. W. 4 is highly doubtful since P. W. 4 alleged to have seen the accused running near a common pipeline after the occurrence, where there was no light facility and no identification parade was conducted and hence he could not have seen the accused.