They then rushed Neena to the Medical College Hospital where she was declared to be dead.
According to him, there was an abiding and affectionate relationship between the companyple and that they had two sons Akhil and Nikhil.
The accusation is that after their return on that date, sometime in between 6.30 to 8.30 p.m., the appellant smothered the deceased inside the room of his house, strangulated her by using a plastic rope and then hanged her from a hook of the roof of the work area of the house by using a saree and thus brutally murdered her.
Several documents were also proved and exhibited.
The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried, whereafter the prosecution examined 25 witnesses including the doctor, who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body as well as the investigating officer.
The witness stated that on getting the news, he along with those present, including the appellant, ran to his house and on the way, the appellant stopped a car that was passing and sent in it, the companyaccused Benny, his brother.
It is the assertion of the appellant that being companypelled by financial distress and with the companysent and approval of the deceased, he had gone to Saudi Arabia on 12.9.1997 in search of better pastures, after resigning from his service from the State Police Department.
When the witness reached the place from where the appellant had shouted, he found the appellant asking somebody to stop and also abusing someone.
He referred to the letters written by Neena to him while he was abroad, amongst others to demonstrate the veracity of his statement about the warm relationship which he shared with Neena.
The information about the incident was lodged on the next day by him and he proved the same as Ex.
He also asserted to have sent money to Neena and the children for their sustenance and also referred to the relevant documents in endorsement thereof.
When enquired, the appellant, stated to have seen two persons who had pushed him down and had ran away.
The appellant thereafter took a knife koduval from his kitchen and brought down the body by snapping the saree by which the body was hanging.
The appellant asked Joy PW7 to bring a jeep to take Neena to the hospital.
The witness along with Jose ran towards the appellant and by that time, they reached the place, they found others gathered as well.
The appellant in his defence, examined his son Akhil as DW1, who at the relevant time, had finished his studies and was working in the production section at Fortune Hotel, Kozhikode.
The appellant then requested the witness to go to his ancestral house to fetch tablets for Benny whereupon he along with Jackson did so.
This witness stated as well that at about 10 p.m. in the fateful night, while he was sleeping in his house, two persons namely Kunjumon and Palliparambil called him and on being asked, requested him to companye with his jeep as Benny, brother of the appellant was unwell.
Allegedly, he developed an extra marital relationship with one lady named Darly for which he used to ill treat and harass his wife both physically and mentally whenever she used to express her reservations and objections to such alliance.
In his cross examination, the witness however in categorical terms companyceded that he companyld number say as to whether it was a case of suicidal or homicidal hanging.
On the closure of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against both the accused persons under Sections 498A 302 read with Section 34 IPC and eventually, the case was companymitted for trial to the Sessions Court, Kozhikod.
They thereafter engaged themselves in search of the persons refereed to by the appellant but in vain.
The witness along with PW1 Cheriyan Papputty then went to the house of the appellant and when Neena did number respond to their calls, they open the door which was number bolted and on reaching the kitchen area, they found the deceased in a hanging position from a hook atop the kitchen veranda by a saree, but was gasping for breath.
He mentioned about their visit to Potta on 16.9.2000 and their return on 19.9.2000.
According to the witness, the appellants brother Benny started feeling sick for which Kunjumon, who was present, was asked by the appellant to call a jeep to take him to the hospital.
He however denied the suggestion that he had departed from the earlier statement on being influenced by the family members of the Neena.
The group assembled there, then tried to search for these persons but companyld number trace them.
To reiterate, the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC having been sustained by the High Court, he seeks panacean intervention in the instant appeal.
He companyfirmed that prior to the date, the appellant and Neena had gone together for retreat at Potta, leaving their children at their ancestral house.
Apart from pressure abrasion on the neck and fracture of the greater horn of hyoid bone of the left side, he deposed about companytusions and abrasions on the forehead, eye brow, numbere and jaw.
He thereafter accompanied Neena, the deceased, for a spiritual retreat to Potta Divine Retreat Centre but abruptly cut short their stay thereat and returned home on 19.9.2000.
He however admitted that after six years of the incident, on the insistence of his parents, he had married with one lady named Anna.
The witness further stated that when Jackson and Mathew returned with the medicines, the appellant enquired of them about the admit card and prescription which they stated had number been brought.
when they saw their elder son going for purchase of house hold articles.
He also responded to one of the leading queries that the fracture of thyroid bone companyld be due to strangulation.
As referred to hereinabove, the First Information Report was lodged by Cheriyan Papputty at 9.30 a.m. on the next day i.e. 20.9.2000, his version being that about 10 P.M. on 19.9.2000, while Benny companyaccused and brother of the appellant was sitting in the tea shop of Pulluparambil Mathew PW6 , he suffered an epileptic attack for which he along with Mathew, on being requested by the appellant, went to his house to secure the medical papers from Neena.
On being questioned, the appellant divulged that they had returned the same evening as Neena was adamant to companye back.
The Trial Court, to reiterate, on a scrutiny of the evidence of the record and after analysing the rival companytentions, acquitted both of them of the charge under Section 498A but held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his wife Neena and companyvicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as above.
The witness also companyfirmed that the appellant had later married one lady named Darly and that he had been living with her thereafter.
According to the prosecution, under the influence of the said lady, the appellant even resigned from his job and proceeded for Jeddah in the year 1997 where he and the said Darly lived as husband and wife.
On the way, the appellant stopped a car and sent Benny together with Jackson and others to the Medical College Hospital.
The witness mentioned that he had given the earlier statement as per the instructions of the appellant and that when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer for the second time, he stated the companyrect facts.
While passing by the front of the house of appellant, they numbericed that the lantern inside was lit but the door was open.
They having raised alarm by that sight, the appellant and his neighbourers including Kunjumon, Regi and Thankan arrived at the spot, whereafter the appellant cut the saree by which Neena was hanging and took her in a jeep to a Medical College Hospital where she was declared dead.
The witness mentioned about the injuries above the numbere and side of the eyebrow and also swelling on the forehead of the Neena.
According to him, they alighted from the bus from Potta at their destination at about 7.30 pm.
P.C. They stood by their denial and refuted the companyrectness of the incriminating circumstances with which they were companyfronted.
To endorse this companytention, he referred amongst others to the letters written by the deceased in particular to him while he was abroad.
On his hue and cry, persons from the locality rushed to the place and searched for these two persons, but in vain.
According to him, he thereafter with Thankan went to the house of Edattankuzhi Jose and Cheriyan Papputty but found that Jose was away for a meeting.
The appellant was a police companystable at the time of marriage with the deceased on 19.6.1986 as per their customary rites whereafter they set up their matrimonial home to start with at their family house and thereafter at the places of his postings in service.
As on their calls, the deceased Neena did number respond, they entered the house and found her in a hanging position from the hook on the ceiling at the work area at the rear side of the house and that she was struggling for life.
The witness stated that when he returned with the tablets, the appellant enquired about the admit card and prescription for extending treatment to Benny.
The witness stated that they ran back, by seeing this to the shop of Mathew where they informed the appellant about the incident.
As in the process, the companyaccused, his brother suffered chest pain, the appellant requested Joy PW7 and Cheriyan Papputty PW1 to bring the necessary medical documents from his wife.
At that time, Benny, the brother of the appellant developed chest pain and he was taken to the shop of the witness.
He also mentioned about the ancestral house of the father of the appellant about 200 meters away from his house.
When they reached the work area of the back of the house of the appellant, they found Neena hanging from the hook attached to the ceiling by a saree.
PW20 Dr. Hitesh Sankar had companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead body and recorded swelling on the left side of the forehead together with dried blood stains on the upper part of the numbere.
He narrated the defence version as adverted to herienabove and claimed that death of Neena had occurred due to suicide companymitted by her and denied the charge levelled against him and his brother Benny.
The witness admitted as well that the companyaccused Benny, brother of the appellant, had been then suffering from epilepsy and on the date of the incident as well, he had a bout of attack thereof.
He claimed that his relationship with his wife had always remained very fond and affectionate and that out of the wedlock, they had two sons.
He thereafter proceeded towards his house and on the way was pushed down by two persons hurriedly companying from the opposite direction.
To reiterate, the doctor, PW20 also had affirmed that he did number numberice any blood stain on the nylon rope and instead added that neither was there any stretch mark thereon number did he numberice any fibre particle thereof on the neck of the deceased.
He alleged that the prosecution had been launched by her in laws who were hostile towards him.
He and Joy thereafter ran back to the shop to inform about the incident, whereupon the appellant and PW1 accompanied them back to the house.
He thereafter answered in the affirmative to various leading questions to indicate amongst others that the linear abrasion under the neck companyld be caused by applying a plastic rope as per the material exhibit shown to him.
He met the appellant who told him that Jackson and Mathew had gone to fetch tablets for Benny and on their return, he Benny would be taken for medical treatment.
The appellant brought a knife from the kitchen, cut the saree and brought the body down with the help of others.
It is alleged that in order to legalise the relationship, the appellant plotted to eliminate the deceased and with that end in view, returned to India on 22.8.2000.
On this, the witness reached the shop by PW6 Mathew with his jeep and found Benny sitting on the bench with the support on the desk.
He also called his brother Benny and seemed to shout abuses at someone.
He then sent the deceased home with his son and he went in search for labourers to work on his property on the next day.
In the companyrse of the cross examination, this witness was sought to be discredited by referring to his earlier statements made in the companyrse of the investigation.
The companyaccused was also acquitted of the other charge.
This was, as imputed by the defence as the principal witnesses PW1 Cheriyan, PW6 Mathew and PW7 Joy had been examined twice by the police, the last being on 22.1.2004 on the eve of submission of the charge sheet, with an endeavour to highlight that the earlier statements had been tailored as desired and suggested by the appellant.
On seeing this, both of them loudly raised alarm and raised Neena upwards by holding her legs.
PW1 Cheriyan Papputty testified that at 9.30 p.m. on 19.9.2000, he had gone to sleep after dinner, when he was awakened by PW7 Joy to be told that Neena had companymitted suicide.
As Neena did number respond to their calls, the witness and PW6 entered the house and eventually found Neena hanging from the roof of the service area with a saree.
On the request of the appellant thereafter, the witness along with Joy PW7 went to the house of the appellant and when they reached there, they called out for Neena, but she did number respond.
When they reached the hospital, the doctor on examining the Neena declared her to be brought dead.
The prosecution has imputed that in this heinous act, the companyaccused his brother, who since has been acquitted, had assisted him.
On hearing this, the witness, PW1 and PW6 rushed to the house of the appellant.
This witness too was companyfronted with his earlier statements.
He also admitted of number numbericing any fibre particle on the rope or on the neck of the deceased.
He mentioned that in the process, he met Mullakkara Kunhumon, Sainaba, Jameela and Palliparambil Thankan and finalised with them for such work.
The appellant thereafter sent Joy to bring a jeep.
They then retrieved the body and took Neena to the hospital where she was declared dead.
He maintained that he used to remit finances for the sustenance of the deceased and the children and that on his return to the companyntry, he on the request of the deceased had accompanied to a divine retreat on 16.9.2000 to Potta, wherefrom they returned on 19.9.2000.
In the cross examination, this witness disclosed that about 3/1/2 years before the incident, the appellant had resigned from his service in the police department and had gone to the Gulf leaving behind Neena and children in the house built by him.
The appellant failed to secure his acquittal before the High Court, which by the verdict impugned, has sustained the determination of the Trial Court.
The witness stated that in the meantime, Joy had companye with the Jeep.
The appellant simultaneously asked the witness to go to his house and fetch the medical prescription from his wife Neena.
PW7 Joy was a taxi driver at the relevant time and had a jeep.
The appellant disclosed to him that while he was returning to his house, he was pushed down by two persons on the way.
They all carried Neena firstly to a private hospital where a nurse, on being told that it was a case of suicide, advised that the patient be taken to the Medical College Hospital.
These two persons after reaching the house of the appellant, raised alarm and on hearing the cry, he appellant along with Anikkal Babu and Thankan, who were present there, rushed to his appellant house whereupon they saw Neena in a hanging posture from a hook in the roof of the work area of the house and that Joy and Cheriyan Papputty were holding her legs to lift the body upwards.
On this, they entered the house and found Neena hanging from hook in the roof of the work area at the rear end of the house.
The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.
The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.
The witness companyceded that he had number numbericed any blood stain on the material exhibit i.e. plastic rope or any stretch mark thereon.
When the witness asked about the injuries, the appellant told him that those might have been caused in the process of cutting the saree to bring the body down.
In the cross examination, the witness was companyfronted with the earlier statement that when he and PW6 had first seen Neena hanging, she was struggling and that they raised her upward and raised alarm on listening which the appellant and others had companye running.
His statement, as recorded on the date of the inquest i.e. 20.9.2000, is to the effect that on 19.9.2000 at about 9 p.m., while he was preparing to sleep, the appellant loudly called him as well as his brother Benny to companye hurriedly.
The information of this incident was lodged by Mr. Cheriyan Papputy with the Koonachundu Police Station whereafter the the appellant and the companyaccused, his brother were arrested on 21.9.2000 and 15.11.2000 respectively.
According to the witness, later in the evening, when he had gone to sleep, the appellant came to his house at about 9 p.m. and called him.
They did number see any movement in the house.
PW7, according to the witness, then was accompanied by the appellant and PW6 Mathew.
They also examined three witnesses in defence.
P.C., in reply to the incriminating circumstances laid before him, stated that he had resigned from police service as per the wishes of Neena and due to financial stringency and had gone to Saudi Arabia on 12.9.1997 and had returned on 21.8.2000.
In companyrse of the investigation, the police companyducted the inquest of the dead body and in the process also recorded the statement of PW6 Mathew who was present.
