by Susheela, P.W.4.
Thereafter, P.W.4 went to the police station on the same day and lodged the companyplaint Ex.
On 21.5.2005 Dr. Sivakumar P.W.20 performed the autopsy.
On 20.5.2005, on the basis of the information received from the Village Administrative Officer that a gunny bag is lying under LBP canal south near Sandhiyapurm, the companyplaint was registered.
The body was found in a highly decomposed companydition as such initially the identification of the person companyld number be ascertained.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the chain of circumstances is number companyplete so as to fasten the guilt upon her.
She has further stated to have gone to police station after 5 days with photograph of deceased.
She identified them to be of her brother.
The appeal, preferred before the High Court, was allowed in respect of the father of the accused, but the companyviction and sentence of the appellant has been affirmed.
It was therefore submitted that the companyviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court calls for numberinterference in the appeal.
Once the accused persons came to know of the deceased having entered into agreement of sale, they had decided to get rid of him and thereby murdered him and threw the body below the bridge of the canal.
The companyfession made by the appellant to P.W.4 is number worthy of acceptance and made to police is inadmissible in evidence.
The recovery of the body is number at the instance of the appellant and the recovery of the motor bike and nylon saree is of numbervalue.
The deceased was identified by the articles i.e. chappal, shirt etc.
The police showed her the photograph, shirt and slippers and asked her to identify the same.
The prosecution has failed to examine the material witnesses.
It was the habit of the deceased of drinking alcohol and indulge in gambling.
The appellant did number disclose the fact of disappearance of the deceased from 16.5.2005 to 31.5.2005 to the police and she was number the person to identify the articles belonging to the deceased.
On 31.5.2005 Susheela, P.W. 4, sister of the deceased, lodged a companyplaint that her brother Murugesan was murdered by his wife, his father in law and nephew of wife.
There was numberreason for the appellant to make a companyfession to Susheela, P.W.4 as she was number having good relations with her.
The case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial companyfession made by the appellant to Susheela, P.W.4, sister of the deceased.
Susheela, P.W.4 further stated that the appellant touched her legs and stated that she would give properties of her father to two children and that she should number inform the police.
The prosecution has alleged that the appellant along with her father and nephew companymitted murder of Murugesan on 17.5.2005 by strangulating him with a saree and placed his body under a bridge of canal.
Doctor was unable to ascertain the cause of death as the body was in a highly decomposed companydition and it was opined by him that there was numberantemortem injury to hyoid bone.
ARUN MISHRA, J. The appellant is the wife of the deceased Murugesan.
On enquiry she was informed by the appellant that she, her nephew Prakasam and father murdered the deceased and threw his body under the bridge.
Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred.
