CHINNATHAMBI Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1952-7-40
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 23,1952

CHINNATHAMBI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BASHEER AHMED SAYEED, J. - (1.) THE appellant in this case has been convicted for having murdered his wife, one Pappal, on or about the 28th July 1951, at about lamplighting time at Thiruvagoundanur, and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Salem division.
(2.) THE prosecution story is that there have been some misunderstanding and quarrels between the appellant and his wife, both being young couple, in respect of certain jewels that had been made for the wife by the appellant. The silver anklet which was made for her by the appellant seems to have been given away to a relation of the wife; and she was questioned about it and then some quarrel ensued in respect thereof. Subsequently, when the wife again went to her parents' house she is said to have parted with silver bangles that were made for her by the appellant. On that occasion the appellant grew very wild and after rebuking her seems to have dealt a blow as a result or which two injuries were caused to the deceased as spoken to by the medical evidence. The post -mortem certificate reveals that there were two injuries which were not very serious but were of a simple nature. As a result of the blow on the head, the deceased is said to have become unconscious and after she became unconscious the appellant tied a rope round her neck and tied her to the beam in the room and closed the door. Hearing the noise that had been created in the room. P. Ws, 1, 2 and 3 rushed to the spot one after another. P. W. 1 cried out against the appellant that he had committed such an offence against the young woman. P. W. 2 also who rushed later heard P. W. 1 exclaim that the appellant had committed such an offence. P. W. 3 also heard to a similar effect. At first, they saw the body hanging from the beam by a rope and subsequently they saw the body being brought down by the appellant cutting the rope.
(3.) P . W. 1 spoke to these facts in her statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. P. Ws. 2 and 3 spoke to these facts in the committal Court but in the Sessions Court all these witnesses became hostile and they were treated as such by the prosecution and were allowed to be cross -examined by the Public Prosecutor. The statement ot P. W. I recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. as also the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 3 recorded before the committal magistrate have been marked under Section 288, Cr. P. C. as substantive evidence in the trial before the Sessions court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.