BALAMURUGAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the sole accused in SC.No. 16/2014 on the file of the Court of Fast Track Mahila Court, Tirupur District and he stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence under section 302 IPC, for having committed murder of his wife, viz., Vanaja. The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2015, has convicted the appellant/accused for the commission of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default sentence to undergo one year simple imprisonment. The Trial Court also granted set-off for the period of incarceration undergone by him between 09.12.2012 and 19.02.2015 under section 428 Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) The facts, briefly narrated and are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows:- 2. 1. The appellant/accused and the deceased, viz., Vanaja, got married during the year 2004 and were blessed with two female children. The appellant/accused and the deceased were living together as husband and wife in Door No. 218, Thiruneelakandar Street, Ponnusamy Compound, Tirumurgan Poondi, Tirupur Taluk. The appellant/accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife/deceased and as a consequence, both of them used to have wordy quarrel and they were also living separately for some time and thereafter, some mediatory efforts were made and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife once again in the above said address. 2. 2. On 08.12.2012 once again there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant/accused and his wife Vanaja and the appellant/accused took a decision to do away with the life of his wife and accordingly, at about 03.15 a.m., on 09.12.2012, with a view to commit murder of his wife, he took the Grinding Stone [M.O.1] and threw it upon the head of his wife and as a consequence, she died on the spot. 2. 3. P.W. 1-Sivasubramaniam, was a resident adjacent to the portion in which the appellant/accused and the deceased were living and according to him, the appellant/accused was in the habit of not attending to work and also pestering his wife Vanaja [deceased] to get money from her father-Ponnusamy [P.W. 4] and as a consequence, there used to be wordy altercation/commotion between the appellant/accused and the deceased. The appellant/accused was living separately at Palani and due to mediatory efforts of the elders of the family, he started living with his wife, just few days prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., on 09.12.2012. The appellant/accused went for work only for about 1 months and thereafter, he stayed at home and once again, wordy quarrel arose between the spouses. 2. 4. On 08.12.2012, P.W. 1, after attending his work, came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and at that time, there was a power cut and after having dinner, P.W. 1 was chatting with one Viji and his mother Selva Rani [P.W. 2] and at that time, he heard the wordy altercation between the appellant/accused and his wife Vanaja and informed about the same to P.W. 2. Thereafter, they went for sleep. P.W. 1, at about 3.15 a.m., on 09.12.2012 went outside to attend the nature's call and at that time, he heard some commotion inside the house of the appellant/accused and when he was nearing his house, he saw the appellant/accused, in a fit of rage, coming out of his house with M.O.1-Grinding Stone and told P.W. 1 that he murdered his wife. Immediately, P.W. 1 went to the house of P.W. 2 and asked her to come and accordingly, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and Viji went inside the house of the appellant/accused and found that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with crushed head and her child was also weeping. P.W. 1 had informed the said fact to one Shanmugam-son of the senior paternal father of the deceased. The said Shanmugam came to the occurrence scene along with his brother Ilango [P.W. 3]. Thereafter, P.W. 1 along with Shanmugam and P.W. 3 went to Anuparpalayam Police Station, Tirupur and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W. 11- Mr. Syed Babu, the Station House Officer attached to the said Police Station. 2. 5. P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police [In-charge] attached to the respondent police station at the relevant point of time, on receipt of the complaint from P.W. 1 under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No. 1453/2012 for the commission of the offence under section 302 IPC on 09.12.2012. The Printed FIR is marked as Ex.P.11. He dispatched the original complaint and the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and to the higher officials through P.W. 7-Mr. Rajendran-Head Constable. 2. 6. P.W. 11, the Investigating Officer, then proceeded to the scene of crime and at 07.15 a.m., on 09.12.2012, in the presence of P.W. 5-Vijayakumar and one Sekar, had prepared the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch which are marked as Exs.P.2 and 12 respectively. P.W. 11 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdars at about 08.30 a.m., and prepared the Inquest Report [Ex.P.13]. He sent the Grinding Stone [M.O.1] for the purpose of ascertaining its weight through P.W. 10-Rameshkumar. P.W. 11 recovered the said Grinding Stone [M.O.1] ; blood-stain from the said Grinding stone in a Gauze cloth and sample Gauze cloth [M.O.3 series] ; blood-stain from the body of the deceased in a Gauze cloth and the sample Gauze cloth [M.O.2 series] under the cover of Mahazar-Ex.P.3 in the presence of the same witnesses. 2. 7. P.W. 11, the Investigating Officer, in order to ascertain the cause of death, sent the body of the deceased Vanaja through P.W. 10 to the Government Headquarters Hospital, at Tirupur along with a requisition for postmortem. 2. 8. P.W. 8-Dr. N. Vimal Kumar, was the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Headquarters Hospital, Tirupur, at the relevant point of time. P.W. 8, on receipt of the requisition along with the body at about 13.05 p.m. on 09.12.2012, noted the presence of rigor mortis in all four limbs and commenced the postmortem at about 13.30 hours on the same day and noted the following features:-

(3.) Mr. T. Muruganandham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and the following circumstances are projected by the prosecution to connect the appellant/accused with the commission of the crime: