PERUMAL ALIAS KUTTIAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused herein who is an accused in S. C. No. 98 of 2006, on the file of the Additional sessions Judge Krishnagiri, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 302, 201 and 404 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under section 366 IPC; sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence under Section 302 IPC; sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo SI for 12 months for the offence under Section 201 ipc and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under section 404 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: pw1 is the mother of the deceased sakthi. PW2 is the son and PW3 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was married to one Chinnathambi and after the death of her husband, the deceased was residing at thurinctripatti village. The deceased was running a grocery shop. The accused had come to the village and he was staying there for a period of two months. He had eloped with one Balammal who is the relative of the deceased. For that a panchayat was convened and a fine was also imposed on the girl. Even after that the accused was staying as a tenant in the house of the deceased. While he was staying in that house, there was illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased. As per the panchayat decision, the accused was ex-communicated from the village, but after a month, he came back to the house of the deceased and compelled her to come with him. The deceased went along with the accused. At that time, PWs 2 and 3 son and daughter of the deceased were in the house. PW1 had also seen both the accused and the deceased getting into a bus together after some time, PW1 mother of the deceased went and enquired PWs. 2 and 3 about the deceased.

(3.) AS the deceased had not returned home for two months, PW1 went to the Police Station and gave complaint on 1. 9. 2002. PW12 sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarasampattu, on receiving the complaint Ex. P1 from PW1, registered a case in Crime No. 926 of 2002 under Section 366 IPC and prepared the first Information Report Ex. P19. PW13, the Inspector of Police on receiving the copy of the FIR, went to the village, thurinchipatti village and examined the witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3 and others. On 2. 9. 2002, at 6. 00 a. m. , he arrested the accused at Dideeppettai, Krishnagiri and recorded his confession given in the presence of the witnesses PW4 and another witness. Ex. P20 is the admissible portion of the confession. In pursuance of the confession, pw13, Inspector of Police went along with the accused to the place near the telephone exchange at Karimangalam, and the accused identified the body of the deceased. He altered the case from Section 366 IPC to 302 IPC and 379 IPC and prepared the express FIR, Ex. P21. From the scenes of occurrence, he recovered MOs1 and 11, blouse and petticoat of the deceased. He also prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P2 and also the rough sketch Ex. P22. He held the inquest and examined the witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ex. P23. As the body was in the decomposed stage, he gave requisition to the post-mortem Doctor for conducting autopsy.