KALA ALIAS CHANDRAKALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode made in S.C.No,98 of 2007, dated 31.10.2007.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode made in S.C.No,98 of 2007, whereby appellants two in number stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 IPC. Originally there were three accused and since the third accused was absconding, the case was split up and the trial proceeded in so far as the appellants herein are concerned and the trial court awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I., each under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and also to undergo one year simple imprisonment each under Section 201 IPC.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: a) P.W.11 on 20.5.2005 after seeing the gunny bag with a dead body under the bridge, informed to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer. PW1, Village Administrative Officer proceeded to the spot at 1 p.m. along with his assistants and found the dead body of 30 years old male. b) THEreafter, P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 and immediately the Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the scene. On 20.5.2005, the Inspector of police examined PW1 and recorded the statement. THE case was taken up for investigation. c) PW4 is the Sister of the accused. PW4 is living at Salem. A1 is the wife, A2 is the father of the first accused, A3 is the nephew of the first accused. After marriage, the deceased was living at Kuppandanpalayam. THE second accused insisted the deceased to purchase 4 acres of land adjacent to his properties and asked him to go and live in his native place. THEreafter the deceased was living with his wife, the first accused at Vilaralimedu, Kavindapadi. THEy got only one son and one daughter. THE deceased used to consume liquor and also used to enter into number of agreements for sale of the properties and received part of the consideration by which A1 and A2 were aggrieved. THE deceased was in the habit of visiting his sister PW4 at Salem, once in a week. He was also talking to her over phone atleast once in two days. At last, on 12.5.2005, deceased Murugesan gone to the house of PW4 and stayed there for a full day and thereafter returned. In the meanwhile, Since PW4 did not get any phone call from the deceased, came to the house of the deceased on 31.5.2005 and when she arrived near the house of the deceased, the daughter of the deceased asked PW4 about her father and immediately PW4 asked the first accused about the deceased. THE accused replied that he had actually gone to her house only. At last, she made a confession to PW4 that along with A2 and the absconding accused Prakash, she committed murder of the deceased. Further, she made a request not to divulge the same to any one else and made an appeal to consider sympathetically and further she was prepared to transfer the title of certain properties to the children of Murugesan. d) THEreafter, PW4 went to the police station and gave a complaint and the same is marked as Ex.P. 2. e). On the basis of the complaint given by PW1, a criminal case was registered in Crime No,51 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 20.5.2005 by P.W.24, the Sub Inspector of Police, and the investigation was pending. THE printed FIR is Ex.P.26. THE Inspector of Police deputed PW22 to assist the doctor to conduct postmortem. f) P.W.20, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has given a categorical opinion that since the dead body was at the decomposed stage, he could not fix the cause of death. THE postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P.14. g. While pending the investigation, PW.26, the Investigation officer caused the arrest of the first accused and she gave a confessional statement and the admissible portion of the confessional statement which is marked as Ex.P.6. Following the same, she produced M.O.6 Motor Bike and M.O.17, Nylon Saree. Both were recovered under two independent mahazar. THEreafter, A2 was also arrested. Further, they were sent for judicial remand. He submitted a requisition to the Magistrate concerned to send the properties for chemical analysis. He also submitted another requisition to the Magistrate for conducting super-imposing test to identify the deceased which resulted in Ex.P.20, the Chemical report, Ex.P.21 and 22, the Serologist reports and Ex.P.25 the Hyoid Bone report. On completion of the investigation, PW.27, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel that in the instant case, the motive which was attributed for the heinous crime of murdering the husband by the first accused was feeble and flimsy and in so far as the second accused was concerned, the prosecution had no evidence at all. The trial Court has also taken in his support the provision under Section 106 of the Evidence Act by stating that the first accused happened to be the wife of the deceased and therefore she should have been a special knowledge about the relevant factors, but she has not divulged anything and hence it can be taken against her. Such view taken by the trial court was erroneous. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Hence, the appellants are entitled to acquittal.