P.D.Dinakaran, J. - (1.) THE appellant was tried in S.C.No. 61 of 2004 on the file of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.250/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 201 IPC, ordered to run concurrently. Hence the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.
(2.) THE Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram laid a charge sheet stating that on 18-19/10/2002 at about 1.00 a.m., at the house of the accused Govindan of Kottaimedu, Soorapalli Village, due to petty quarrel with his wife deceased Kannammal and also suspecting her fidelity, kicked her with his leg on her chest and face and also strangulated her neck with her Saree and caused fracture of hyoid bone and fracture of right side ribs and thereby the said Kannammal died of effects of multiple injuries and also caused the evidence of the commission of the said offence to disappear by digging a pit at the western side of the wall of his house and buried the dead body of his wife in the said pit and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC. When the accused was initially questioned with regard to the charges levelled against him, the accused refuted them and asked for trial. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.12 were marked, besides M.Os.1 to 5. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the prosecution witnesses is as follows:- (a) P.W.1 Madhammal who is the mother of the deceased Kannammal is residing at Kottaimedu within the limits of Jalakandapuram Police Station. P.W.2 Rajendran is her son and he is residing with P.W.1. P.W.6 Raja @ Rajamani is residing at Kottaimedu with his wife P.W.5 Selvi, daughter of P.W.1 Mathammal, Witnesses Venkatachalam who is the son of P.W.1 Mathammal, P.W.7 Seerangammal are also residing at Kottaimedu. The accused who is the husband of Kannammal belongs to Chettipatti Village and after marriage he stayed at Kottaimedu and lived with his wife in a garden house near the house of P.W.1 Madhammal and other witnesses. There were frequent quarrels between the deceased Kannammal and the accused Govidnan and also the accused Govindan suspected the fidelity of his wife Kannammal, which was another reason for frequent quarrels between them. This is known to the witnesses residing nearby the garden house of the accused Govindan. One month prior to the occurrence, because of the quarrel, the deceased Kannammal came and resided with P.W.1 Madhammal for about a month. Then the accused came to the house of P.W.1 Madhammal and requested to send her along with him and P.W.1 Madhammal after giving due advice to her daughter Kannammal sent her back to the house of the accused Govindan and this happened on a Friday. On the next day, when P.W.1 Madhammal went along the house of the accused Govindan, she saw the accused Govindan sitting in the pial of the house and when asked about her daughter, he told her that she had gone for Jalakandapuram. Again when in the evening P.W.1 Madhammal went to see her daughter, she found the door locked and hence she returned to her house. Again in the morning of Sunday when she went to the house of her daughter, she found the door locked and the accused Govindan was also absent. Hence, she searched for her daughter on that day along with relatives and sons and could not know about the whereabouts of her daughter Kannammal. (b) On the next day, i.e., on Monday morning with the use of a key which had been given to her by the daughter of the deceased, she opened the door and went inside the house and she sensed bad smell emanating and also found a new mud plaster near the western wall of the house and suspecting that her daughter would have been killed, she came out of the house and raised an alarm. On hearing the alarming sound, P.W.2 Rajendran came there and he also went into the house and found the symptoms seen and P.W.1 Madhammal prepared a written complaint Ex.P.1 and went to Jalakandapuram Police Station at about 10.30 a.m., and gave the same to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.12). On receipt of the complaint, he registered a case in Crime No:402/02 under Section 302 and 201 IPC against the accused and prepared printed form of FIR, Ex.P.10 and sent those records to the concerned authorities. (c) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, who was then put in charge of Jalakandapuram Police Station commenced investigation after obtaining Ex.P.10 FIR and went to the scene of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m., and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.11. Since the body was under buried condition, he gave requisition letter Ex.P.9 to P.W.11, Tahsildar for conducting inquest. On receipt of Ex.P.9 requisition on 21.10.2002 at about 3.00 pm., P.W.11, Tahsildar went to the occurrence house at about 9.00 a.m., observed the surroundings and with the help of the Village Administrative Officer, exhumed the body buried near the south western wall of the house and the body of the lady was brought out. P.W.13, Inspector of Police prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.3 Raja and witness Elango. He also caused taking of Photographs (Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 series) of the occurrence place and the body. P.W.1, Madhammal, P.W.2 Rajendran and others identified the body as that of Kannammal. P.W.11 Tahsildar conducted inquest and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P.8 and enquired witnesses and also prepared Exhumation Report Ex.P.9 and sent requisition to Dr. Vallinayagam (P.W.4) to come and conduct postmortem on the spot itself. (d) P.W.4, Dr. Vallinayagam on receiving the requisition of the Tahsildar on 21.10.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., went to the spot on 22.10.2002 at about 9.00 a.m., and conducted autopsy on the exhumed body of a lady and after the post-mortem he issued Ex.P.4, Exhumation Report and Post-mortem certificate wherein he noted the following injuries:- "1. Contusion on front and sides of neck 15 x 8 x 3 cm dark red. 2. Fracture of hyoid bone present. 3. Fracture of ribs on right side 2 to 9 present and left side 2 to 8 present. 4. Laceration of right lung 3 x 2 x 1 cm and left lung 4 x 2 x 1 cm. Right plural cavity contains 60 ml fluid blood and left side 50 ml." (e) In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. On information at about 4.00 pm., on the Jalakandapuram-Nagavalli Road, near the Geetharamakrishna Mill Bus Stop, he arrested the accused and enquired him and recorded his statement in the presence of the VAO and Village Assistant and recorded his statement and on the basis of the confession statement Ex.P.12 given by the accused, he went to the occurrence house at about 5.00 p.m., and recovered the Spade (M.O.1) and Iron Crowbar (M.O.2) in the presence of the witnesses, which were alleged to have been used in connection with the crime. After post-mortem, P.W.10 Police Constable recovered M.Os 3 to 5 being Sari, Jacket and Pettycoat from the dead body and entrusted them to the Police Station. P.W.13 Inspector of Police, who had gone on leave and returned to duty and on perusal of records and investigation done by P.W.13, laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302 and 2011 IPC.
(3.) AFTER the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against him, for which, the appellant denied complicity of the commission of the offence stating that he never lived with his wife Kannammal in the house where from her dead body was exhumed and he was not at all residing at Kottaimedu, the place of occurrence, during the relevant period as he was working in a quarry at Bangalore. Neither oral, nor documentary material has been produced on the side of the defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the oral arguments of both sides, documentary evidence and material objects, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal is preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this case being purely based on circumstantial evidence alone, there is no link to connect the circumstantial evidence and thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, particularly when the accused has offered sufficient explanation in support of his defence of alibi.;