(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No. 770 of 2014 dated 15.07.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tenkasi and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1.This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.770 of 2014 dated 15.07.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tenkasi, thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the third wife of the accused. The deceased’s earlier two marriages were unsuccessful. When the accused went to the deceased’s place for construction work, the deceased fell in love with him, and they got married. The accused, however, was already married. The deceased came to know about his marital status only after their marriage, and as a result, she was living separately.

3.While the deceased and the accused were living together, the accused did not go for any job and used to quarrel with the deceased for money, for consuming alcohol. One week prior to the incident, the accused planned to do away with the life of the deceased in order to obtain the documents of the house where the deceased was residing.

4.On 02.12.2016, at about 14.30 hours, the accused came to the house and quarreled with the deceased, demanding the house documents or money by mortgaging the property. Relatives were present at that time. The accused then went inside the house to take the documents. When the deceased followed him, he immediately locked the house from inside and murdered her by strangulating her neck with an electric wire.

5.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.325 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

6.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

7.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the duration of time that the appellant and the deceased spent inside the deceased’s house on the date of the occurrence. This, according to the counsel, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

9.Although the accused locked the house from inside with the deceased, no one attempted either to knock on the door or to break it until the accused came out. This indicates that there were no signs of noise or resistance from the deceased. Hence, it is doubtful whether the accused had actually murdered the deceased or whether the prosecution witnesses were truly present at the scene of the occurrence.

10.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the accused strangulated the deceased. If the deceased had been strangulated, she would have definitely raised an alarm and resisted by shouting, especially since she knew that all her relatives were standing outside the house. Therefore, the entire story of the prosecution appears to be artificial in nature, and the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite this, the Trial Court, without properly considering the facts and circumstances, mechanically convicted the accused.

11.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that, in order to establish the charge, the prosecution had examined eyewitnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6. All the eyewitnesses categorically deposed and corroborated each other.

12.Even assuming that P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 were not present at the scene of the crime, since the accused was the husband of the deceased, it is presumed that they were together at the scene of the crime. Therefore, a presumption arises under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Except the accused, no one else was present at the scene of the crime, and the witnesses had seen the accused and the deceased together just 15 minutes before the occurrence. They had also seen the accused coming out of the house where the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court.

13.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

14.Admittedly, the accused was the third husband of the deceased, and for the accused, the deceased was his second wife. While they were living under the same roof, the accused failed to pursue any employment and used to demand money from the deceased.

15.On the date of the occurrence, when P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 were present in front of the deceased’s house, the accused came there and demanded the property documents for the purpose of mortgage. The deceased refused, and the accused then went inside the house. The deceased followed him, after which the accused locked the door from inside. After approximately 15 minutes, he ran out of the house carrying a yellow bag. Thereafter, the witnesses found that the accused had murdered the deceased by strangulating her with an electric wire.

16.P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They categorically deposed about the incident and corroborated each other. There is no contradiction or exaggeration regarding the occurrence. Even in cross-examination, the defence failed to elicit any evidence to disprove the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.

17.Though P.W.1 to P.W.4 are relatives and P.W.6 is a neighbor of the deceased, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses. They were eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and their evidence is cogent and trustworthy. There are absolutely no circumstances to disbelieve their testimony. The minor contradictions regarding the time the accused was inside the house are not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

18.The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1 is as follows:

                  

                  

19.Thus, it is clear that the accused frequently demanded money from the deceased, and as a result, quarrel between them occurred very often. On the date of the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased and demanded the original property documents in the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6. When the deceased refused to hand over the documents, the accused went inside the house. The witnesses attempted to prevent him from entering; however, the accused went inside, and the deceased followed him. Immediately, he locked the door from inside. This indicates that the accused came to the house of the deceased with the intention to do away with her life.

20.The motive is also clearly established by the prosecution. The accused had sold the deceased’s jewelry and frequently demanded money from her. He also threatened that if she did not give him money, he would kill her. Therefore, he came to the house of the deceased with the intention to do away her life. The prosecution examined P.W.6 and P.W.7 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and they are independent witnesses.

21.Further, P.W.8 and P.W.9 deposed that quarrel frequently occurred between the deceased and the accused over demands for money to consume alcohol. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the charge, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.