According to W.4, they saw her hanging from the roof and she was in a kneeled down position.
Chemical analysis report Ex.
Learned companynsel further submitted that going by the evidence of P.W.3 and W.4 since the body of the deceased was found hanging with the aid of a saree and there being numbereye witness to the occurrence, the case of the appellant that the deceased companymitted suicide by hanging herself should have been accepted and the appellant should have been acquitted from all the charges.
P 1 came to be lodged through P.W.1 at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.08.2004.
In other words, the theory of hanging by the deceased on her own, propounded by the appellant was found to be number true.
A2 and A3 were found guilty of the offences under Section 498 A of I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Though in the first blush such a companytention appears to be appealing, on a deeper scrutiny, we find that the same was wholly unbelievable and does number merit any companysideration.
A2 and A3 have already undergone the sentence, even while the appellants appeal was preferred before the High Court.
As stated earlier, we are companycerned only with the appellant who was the first accused.
When the above circumstances were all put to the appellant, there was only a simple denial and numberhing more was stated on behalf of the appellant.
After the receipt of the aforesaid report, P.W.9 expressed his opinion that the death was due to strangulation.
The learned companynsel submitted that merely because a mark was numbered on the neck of the deceased, which did number have a full circle on the neck, it cannot be companycluded that the appellant did number cause her death.
P 6, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as well as that of P.Ws.1 to 4 companytended that the offence alleged against the appellant of homicidal death by strangulating his wife with the aid of a cable wire was companyclusively proved and there was numberreason to doubt the said companyclusion reached by the trial Court as well as the High Court.
The learned companynsel was at pains to show that the cable mark was visible to the naked eye as numbered by the Postmortem Doctor P.W.9 as well as Ex.
P 8 Postmortem Report on 13.08.2004.
M.Os.7 and 8.
Based on the appellants information, M.Os.7 and 8 cable wires were also recovered.
In the above stated background, when we companysider the companytention of the appellant, it was mainly two fold.
The evidence of P.W.9 the Postmortem Doctor who issued Ex.
The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also companyfirmed that there was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and that substance like cable was used for such strangulation.
In the first instance, it was companytended that as per the medical evidence what was numbered on the neck of the deceased was a cable mark from the right side to the left side of the neck and number all around the neck of the deceased which would number support the theory of strangulation.
As far as the occurrence is companycerned, the appellant got married to the deceased on 27.07.1997.
P 8, P.W.9 reserved his opinion awaiting chemical analysis report.
She recovered M.Os.1 to 4 and M.O.7 in the presence of witness P.W.7.
The Complaint was lodged with P.W.13, the Inspector of Police of the said police station.
II, Gobichetipalayam.
Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Gulsara Banu.
P 9, W.13 recovered T.V.S.50 brake cable wire M.O.8 from the workshop of the appellant.
P.W.2 who is the uncle of the deceased stated that he was living 50 kms away from the place of appellant and the deceased and that he got information from the appellant that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain.
P 6, the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, P.W.9 gave the opinion that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia.
On the whole the episode was attempted by the appellant to show as though his wife companymitted suicide while it has companye out in evidence through P.W.4 that the deceased was found in a kneel down position as there was hardly four feet gap in between the top of the company and the roof.
P 17 Inquest report.
P 1 Complaint, before the All Women Police Station, Gobichetipalayam.
Dr. Balwada, learned companynsel in his submissions, after referring to the evidence of P.W.13 the investigating officer submitted that there was great doubt as to whether the occurrence had taken place as narrated by the prosecution before the Courts below, in as much as, though P.W.1 stated to have lodged the companyplaint at 11.00 p.m. on 12.08.2004, the case was registered for offence s under Section s 498 A I.P.C. and Section 174 of Cr.
According to him, he received a phone call from the accused at 3.00 p.m. stating that the deceased companyplained of stomach pain and wanted him to companye over to Kurumanthur immediately.
The trial Court based on the evidence placed before it, companyvicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 498 A read with Section 201 of P.C. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. apart from fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
P.W.2 also stated that his wife on seeing the body of the deceased numbered strangulation marks on her neck, because of which P.W.2 developed some suspicion and upon the arrival of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, they decided to lodge a companyplaint and that is how the Ex.
Thereafter, the deceased was seen by W.4 in the godown where he was working, to which place, the deceased went and enquired about the owner of the godown which is a tobacco godown.
The sentences were to run companycurrently.
P.W.13 registered the said companyplaint in Crime No.5 of 2004 for the offences under Section 498 A of I.P.C. and Section 174 of Cr.
It has companye out in scientific evidence and expert opinion without any scope of ambiguity that there was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and that there was also a rope mark which companyld have been caused with the aid of the cable wire viz.,
Death may be due to Asphyxia due to Straglets.
P.W.9 who companyducted the postmortem, issued Ex.
The further fact that the appellant was found sitting on the roof top removing certain tiles found to be another well thought out drama played by the appellant to make P.W.4 and his friend to believe as though he was innocent and he had numberhing to do with the killing of his deceased wife.
As against the above submissions, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna learned standing companynsel for the respondent State by drawing our attention to the evidence of P.W.9 Postmortem Doctor and Ex.
She recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and other witnesses and sent the dead body of the deceased along with Ex P 4 requisition through P.W.11 woman police companystable to the Government Hospital, Gobichetipalayam for postmortem.
On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court having companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, the appellant is before us.
In Ex.
P.18 Special Report and forwarded the same to the Court again.
When such scientific evidence was found to be existing the story spun by the appellant that his wife was hanging from the roof with the aid of a saree has been found to be numberhing but a companycocted one designed to escape from his culpability.
The learned companynsel also companytended that there were variations in the statement of Postmortem Doctor P.W.9 and Forensic Science Laboratory report which also disclose that there was numberovert act to be attributed to the appellant for the alleged killing of the deceased by strangulation with the aid of a cable wire.
P 6 Forensic Science Laboratory report apart from strangulation mark found on the neck of the deceased which all show without any iota of doubt that it was a case of murder and that all the other attendant circumstances companyclusively prove that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the deceased.
The appellant and the deceased were living together in a portion let out by P.W.3.
The occurrence took place in the morning hours of 12.08.2004.
Having heard the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing companynsel for the respondent State and having perused the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial Court as well as the material documents marked in the case, at the very outset, it will be relevant to numbere the incriminating circumstances which were found established against the appellant.
On the fateful day in the early morning around 3.00 a.m. according to P.W.3, he heard shrieking numberse of the deceased and when the wife of P.W.3 went and tapped the door, she heard the appellant uttering something in Urdu to the deceased and the deceased herself informed that she suffered a minor electric shock.
It was a portion of the house.
After P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence at around 10.00 p.m., he found strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased.
The accused were arrested thereafter on 16.08.2004 at 9.45 p.m. With the admissible portion of the companyfession of the appellant in Ex.
We heard Dr.Sushil Balwada, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned standing companynsel for the respondent State.
P.C. and sent the Express Report to the Judicial Magistrate No.
P.W.4 and his friend called upon the appellant to open the door to enable them to get inside in order to rescue the deceased.
She stated to have inspected the place of occurrence and companyducted the Inquest over the dead body between 2.30 a.m and 5.30 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.
All the three accused were charged for offences under Sections 498 A , 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The parents of the appellant viz.,
Such information was also passed on to P.W.2, uncle of the deceased, by around 3.30 p.m. and he also immediately rushed to Kurumanthur which was just 50 kms away from his place.
It was then companytended that even as per the version of P.W.4 and his friend who helped the appellant to lower down the body, which was hanging from the roof top, they found the deceased hanging with the aid of a saree around her neck.
The High Court therefore dealt with the case of the appellant alone.
P.C. and for numberreason, much later on 16.08.2004, the case was altered as one under Section s 302 r w Section 201 of I.P.C. and Section 498 A of P.C. According to the learned companynsel, there was numberhing to show that the Express Report was immediately forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate.
He preferred Ex.
P.W.1 is the companyplainant who is the father of the deceased.
They were living in a rented premises belonging to P.W.3 at Kurumanthur.
P 8 Postmortem Report deposed that initially when he examined the body of the deceased, he companyld number offer any definite opinion as he wanted to verify the Forensic Science Laboratory report.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. This appeal at the instance of A1, who is the appellant herein, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16.08.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2006.
Along with the appellant, his parents were also proceeded against, who were arrayed as A2 and A3.
The learned companynsel also drew our attention to M.O.5 the photographs which were marked through P.W.8 the photographer which also disclose the case of the prosecution that the appellant strangulated his wife with the aid of a cable wire and the cause of her death was fully established.
She also recovered green companyour wire M.O.7 at the instance of the appellant in the presence of P.W.10.
A2 who was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. was acquitted of those charges.
After examining W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 on 15.08.2004 and after recording their statements it came to light that it was number a case of suicide and therefore W.13 altered the offences under Sections 498 A , 302 r w 201 of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.
On hearing the said information, he along with his wife rushed to the place of the appellant where they found the deceased lying dead on the floor.
The appellant along with A2 and A3 were charged for offences under Sections 498 A , 302 read with 201 as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Subsequently, P.W.4 along with one of his friends heard the shouts of the appellant and rushed to the house of the appellant and the house was locked from inside and they saw the appellant crying and also shouting that his wife hanged herself from the roof with the aid of a saree.
Subsequently, after receipt of Ex.
She forwarded M.Os.9 to 14 along with Form 95 through P.W.11.
By referring to the said evidence, it was companytended that it was a definite case of suicide and number a homicidal death.
It was also stated by P.W.4 that before entering the house, they saw the appellant on the roof top removing some of the tiles.
After they entered, they brought the body of the deceased to the floor and found that she was already dead, though the appellant claimed that she was alive.
P 6 was issued by the Professor of Forensic Medicine and District Police Surgeon, Coimbatore in which inter alia it was stated HPE poison was detected Hyoid Bone intact.
