SANKARLAL ALIAS SANKARAYEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sec.302, I.P.C. passed in S.C.No. 114 of 1983 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division for having murdered one Arumugam Nadar, the husband of the appellant.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: THE appellant is the wife of the deceased Arumugam Nadar and they have got give sons viz. 1. Selvan Rajan, P.W.1 2. Sakthivel, P.W.4 3. Selvan Swaminathan, D.W.1 4. Easwaran and 5. Palaniswami. THEy belong to a village called Alampalayam and they have settled down in another place called Arikarampalayam for the purpose of eking out their livelihood. THE deceased Arumugam Nadar was working in the land of one Sellappa Gounder and Ramaswamy Gounder in Arikarampalayam.. He was selling sweet toddy and supporting the family from the income derived from the same. P.W.1 and the accused also used to go for work. �On the date of occurrence, the deceased went to Pulliyampattai for work and returned to his house at about 5.30 P.M. THE deceased reached the house at about 6.00 P.M. On his reaching home, he questioned the accused as to why she had not prepared food, for which the accused replied stating that there was no rice in the house. She further stated that she has to go to the house of Gounder to get rice and prepare the food. On this, the deceased scolded her by saying whether she wanted to have illicit relationship with the Gounder and so saying beat her on the chest. THEreafter, the accused went to the house of P.W.5, Arunachalam Gounder to get some rice followed by the deceased. After getting rice from the house of P.W.5, the accused returned to the house, prepared food and served the deceased and her children. THE deceased scolded her and consumed the food served by the accused. THEreafter, he took M.O.3 a tapper knife and placed the same under his pillow and went to sleep. M.O.3 Aruval was kept at the place where the deceased was lying. THE deceased and the children were lying in the next room, where M.O.2, a small Chimili lamp was burning. In the mid-night, P.W.2 heard noise and woke up. He and his brothers found the accused standing near the deceased with an Aruval. P.Ws.1 and 4 raised an alarm and they saw bleeding injury on the neck of the deceased. THE accused went away with M.O.3 After hearing the noise of P.Ws.1 and 4, their other brothers also woke up. P.W.1 took his brothers and went to the house of P.W.5. He informed P.W.5 that the appellant had cut his father and run away with the Aruval. THEreupon, P.W.5 with his brother P.W.2 Ramaswamy Gounder came to the scene of occurrence and declared that the deceased was dead.

(3.) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, Velayutham, received the first information report at about 5.00 a.m.on 11.6.1983 and took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 7.30 a.m. He inspected the scene of occurrence at about 8.00a.m. and prepared a Mahazar, Ex.P.11 in the presence of the witnesses. He also prepared a sketch Ex.P.17. He conducted the inquest from 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and Ex.P.18 is his inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and other witnesses and despatched the dead body with a requisition Ex.P.7 for post-mortem through the Constable, P.W.8. At about 12.30 p.m., on the same day, he recovered M.Os.1 and 2 Arikan light and Chimli lamp respectively, M.O.4 Cot, M.O.6 blood stained earth and M.O.7 sample earth under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.12. After completing the inquest he arranged for taking photographs through P.W.7 Raja. P.W.7 took photographs from several angles. M.O.8 series are the negatives and M.O.9 series are the photo prints. P. W.6 has attested the Exs.P.11 and 12. On the same day he examined P.Ws.6 and 8 and sent the accused for remand at about 3.00 p.m.