P RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr. P. C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Kallakurichi made in S. C. No. 74 of 2007 dated 30. 11. 2007. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kallakurichi made in S. C. No. 74 of 2007,whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC and on trial he was found guilty and life imprisonment was awarded to him under Section 302 IPC, while he was acquitted of the other charge.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: a) PW1 is the Village Administrative Officer. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the Village Assistants. When PW1 was in his office on 11. 3. 2006 at about 10 a. m. he was informed by PW2 that the accused /appellant had caused death of his wife at night hours on 10. 3. 2006. On receipt of information, he immediately proceeded to the house of the accused where the dead body was found. THE accused also made an oral statement that due to family quarrel, he murdered his wife. THE said extra judicial confession statement was made in the presence of PWs. 2 andPW1 immediately took the accused/appellant to the respondent police Station. b) PW17, Sub Inspector of Police, Chinna Salem Police Station at about 11. 15 hours when he was in the Police station took the complaint given by PW1 which is marked as Ex. P. 1 and on the strength of which a case has been registered in Crime No. 103 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P. 10, the Printed F. I. R. despatched to the Court. c) THE investigation was taken by P. W. 23 Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police Station. On receipt of the copy of First Information report, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. He made Observation Mahazar Ex. P. 2 and also prepared Rough Sketch Ex. P. 14. He has also prepared rough sketch, where the dead body was kept which is marked as Ex. P. 15. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayators and prepared Ex. P. 16. THEn, the dead body was sent for the purpose of post-mortem. d) P. W. 16,the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and has issued Ex. P. 7, the post-mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to strangulation between 15 to 19 hours prior to autopsy. e )THE Investigating Officer examined PWs4 and P. W. 5, the brother of the deceased has given a statement to the effect that he was present at the time of occurrence when the accused gave a blow on her head and also stabbed her and caused injury below her eyes and at that time, due to fear, he ran away from the place of occurrence. f) Pending investigation, P. W. 23 arrested the accused and he has come forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. THE admissible portion of confessional statement of the accused was marked as Ex. P. 4. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused produced M. O. 1 knife and M. O. 2 stick which were recovered under a cover of Mahazar Ex. P. 5. THE other witnesses were examined. THE witnesses were produced before P. W. 22, the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram. who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr. P. C. g) THEreafter a requisition Ex. P. 17 was forwarded to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for sending the viscera for analysis. Ex. P. 8 another requisition was also forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate to send the Material objects for chemical analysis. All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department. Accordingly, the Viscera report Ex. P. 7 and Hyoid Bone report Ex. P. 9 were obtained. . THE accused was sent for judicial remand. P. W. 16,after further investigation and on completion of the investigation, filed the final report.

(3.) THE Court heard the Additional Public prosecutor on the above contentions and the Court paid its anxious consideration.