S GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as "the accused", was tried before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on a charge of murder, with an allegation that at 3.30 a.m. on 17.8.1995, he murdered his wife Prema by smothering her. To prove the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 as well as M.Os.1 to 4. On the side of the defence, Ex.D.1, a petition sent by the father of the accused to P.W.6, was marked. On the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows: THE deceased is the wife of the accused and they were residing in a house belonging to P.W. 1. THEre used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased. On 20.7.1995 P.W.1 went along with his family members to condole the death of a relative and returned on the next day and he was informed that the wife of the accused has consumed poison. P.W.1, therefore, asked the accused and the deceased to vacate the house. THE accused promised to vacate the house in few months time. At about 5.00 a.m. on 17.8.1995, when P.W.1 was sleeping in his portion, the accused went and knocked the door. P.W.1 came out of the house and asked the accused as to what has happened. THE accused told him that his wife is lying unconscious and requested P.W.1 to examine her. P.W.1, on examining Prema, found her dead. THE accused left the place after informing P.W.1 that he will bring his relatives. He did not return till noon. Since the accused did not return even by noon, P.W.1 left for Saibaba Colony police station, where he gave a complaint to P.W.10, the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), which was reduced into writing and the same is Ex.P-1. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case in Crime No. 1288 of 1995 was registered under Sec. 174, Crl.P.C. Ex.P-15 is a copy of the printed first information report. Investigation was taken up by P.W.9, the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He reached the scene of occurrence, where a rough sketch, Ex.P-13 was prepared. An observation mahazar, Ex.E-2, was also prepared, attested by witnesses, He questioned witnesses including P.Ws. 1, 2 and "others. THEir statements were recorded. He issued a requisition to P.W.6, the Revenue Divisional Officer, for conducting inquest, since the death occurred within 7 years of the marriage of the deceased with the accused. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.6, the Revenue Divisional Officer, went to the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest. He prepared inquest report, Ex.P-11. THEreafter, a requisition was issued to the doctor for conducting autopsy.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution that Prema died on account of homicidal violence stands established through the evidence of the post-mortem doctor, P.W.4, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ex.P-8, the post-mortem certificate, and Ex.P-9, the final opinion. According to the doctor, Prema died on account of smothering and the injuries which he noted in the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-8, show that several nail scratch marks, which were present in crescentic shape, were seen on the right upper lip below the nose. THE doctor also noted nail marks on the left cheek and the left zygomatic region. Several bruises and abrasions were noticed on the right cheek, left eye and the margins of both alar nasi. Contusions were also noticed by the doctor on the inner eminence of both palms. THE doctor, after obtaining the report of the chemical analyst and on the basis of the injuries noted by him, gave his opinion that Prema died on account of smothering. He also gave evidence in Court. In cross-examination, when a suggestion was put to the doctor that if solid particles get struck in the windpipe, a person is likely to the and the said suggestion is denied by the doctor by saying that he did not notice any solid particles in the windpipe. On the evidence, we hold that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence.