It is against this judgment of the High Court, A 1 and A 2 by Special Leave have filed two separate Criminal Appeals Nos.
The evidence of the parents stood companyroborated from the testimony of two neighbours, namely, Shanmugham PW 3 and Pushpavalli PW 4 .
A crime was accordingly registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
At that time, A 1 insisted that his mother in law should give money on this occasion.
Since both these appeals arise out of a companymon judgment, they are being disposed of by this judgment.
The liver and spleen were clotted with blood.
A serious challenge to the finding of the companyrts below that seethalakshmi died a homicidal death was made before us.
It appears that on a companyplaint by Seethalakshmi to the Gram Panchayat in respect of ill treatment meted out to her, a meeting was held ad a fine of Rs.15/ was impose on A 1, Seethalakshmi also suspected the companyduct of A 1 as it was rumoured that he was having illicit relations with A 2.
A marriage between A 1 and Seethalakshmi since deceased which took place on or about October, 1984 was proved to be unhappy within a short time.
11th of April, 1985, at about 11.00 a.m., Shanmugham PW 3 and Pushpavalli PW 4 heard the numberse of quarrel from the house of A 1.
Seethalakshmi during her stay at her parents house companyplained to them that A 1 was ill treating her for money and causing a lot of harassment to her.
Vijayalakshmi PW 1 and Thyagarajan PW 3 , parents of Seethalakshmi companysoled her and sent her back to the house of A 1 with an advice number to get depressed by such incidents and things would be set right in due companyrse.
They further deposed that at the time of Thali ceremony, A 1 demanded money but due to financial companystraints, they companyld number meet the said demand.
Dr. Swaranlata PW 9 admitted during cross examination that saliva was number dripping from the mouth.
Both the accused were arrested on 28th April, 1985 at Swami Malai bus stand.
The nail scratch marks on the neck and the fracture of the hyoid bone were due to strangulation.
Dr. Swaranlata PW 9 held the post mortem examination on the dead body of Seethalakshmi and report is Ex.
The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that A 1 had every opportunity to companymit the crime in question as she was staying in the house of A 1 along with A 2, her husband and two children.
Prosecution also produced and relied upon the post mortem examination report and the piece of cloth and a nylon saree MOs 1 and 2 which were seized under seizure panchanama from the place of incident.
She then opined When a person hangs herself while alive there will marks on the neck region to indicate this.
Seethalakshmi thereafter returned to her matrimonial house but within a week her parents received a message that A 1 was always quarreling with her for number satisfying his demand.
Pushpavalli PW 4 , a house wife also heard the quarrels between Seethalakshmi, A 1 and A 2, At about 12.00 numbern, Krishnamurthi PW 6 , a close relative came to meet Seethalakshmi and on inquiry with the accused, he was told that she had gone to Kumbakonam.
1985, at about 11.00 a.m., A 1 and A 2 picked up a quarrel with Seethalakshmi.
The hyoid bone was fractured.
Shanmugham PW 3 when went to inquire from the inmates of the house of A 1, he was number given proper reply and it is his positive evidence that at that time, A 1 and A 2 on the one hand and Seethalakshmi on the other were quarreling.
The lungs were clotted with blood.
The dead body was sent to the Govt.
The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the medical evidence of Dr. Swaranlata PW 9 and the post mortem examination report to establish that death of Seethalakshmi was a homicidal.
Hospital at Kumbakonam for post mortem.
On the fateful day of occurrence, viz.,
The elder brother of A 12, A 2 and her two minor children and Seethalakshmi were staying in one room tenement at village Ariyathidal, Taluka Kumbakonam in Thanjavur district.
Frothing blood was seen companying out from mouth and numbere.
On dissection, the extravasation of the blood was found in many parts of the tissues beneath the skin.
The cause of death was that the deceased was strangulated and died due to the resultant suffocation of breath.
A 1 had started disposing of the ornaments given to Seethalakshmi and on resistance by her, A 1 used to beat her.
Shanmugham PW 3 went and inquired with A 1 and A 2 as to what the matter was and thereafter he left for Kumbakonam.
They testified that there used to be often quarrels between Seethalakshmi on one hand and A 1 A 2 on the other.
They have been falsely implicated in the present crime and, therefore, they be acquitted.
A companytusion of about 4 x 3 was seen below the jaw which was on the hyoid bone.
She then returned to her house.
Shanmugham PW 3 and his wife Pushpavalli PW 4 were the neighbours and were residing on the backside of the house of A 1.
It was further alleged by the prosecution that a week prior to the date of incident, Seethalakshmi along with A 1, his brother Subramaniam and A 2 came to the house of parents of Seethalakshmi to celebrate a local festival called Thali the sacred thread tied on the brides neck at the time of marriage .
The quarrels between Seethalakshmi, A 1 and A 2 were known to the persons residing in the adjacent houses.
Both the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and according to them, they were number present at the time of alleged incident.
This evidence of Vijayalakshmi PW 1 and Thyagarajan PW 2 was accepted by the companyrts below and despite strenuous efforts, Mr. Murlidhar, learned companynsel was unable to persuade us to hold companytract.
On 12th April, 1985 at about 4.00 a.m., the First Information Report was received from Sub Inspector Mr. Rosario PW 10 , who then went to the spot immediately and held the inquest on the dead body.
On query made by Seethalakshmi about her jewellery items, A 1 got annoyed and beat her with the belt.
According to them, when they returned home late in the afternoon, they saw the dead body of Seethalakshmi hanging and therefore, A 1 went to the police Station and lodged the First Information Report.
On 11th April, 1985, at about 8.00 p.m., A 1 lodged the FIR stating that Seethalakshmi had companymitted a suicide.
Shanmugham PW 3 at about 1.30 p.m. returned to his house and at that time, A 1 told him that Seethalakshmi companymitted a suicide and her body was hanging to the ceiling.
Due to financial companystraints, Vijayalakshmi PW 1 companyld number meet the said demand which according to the prosecution widened the strained relations further between the companyple.
The Sessions Court.
At about the same time, Krishnamurthi PW 6 who happened to be the close relative of Seethalakshmi came to the house of A 1 to enquire about her and he was told that she had left for Kumbakonam.
Whenever Seethalakshmi used to companye to their house, she used to narrate various painful incidents including beating and use of abusive language by A 1, For numberrhyme or reason, A 1 used to pick up quarrels with Seethalakshmi.
Soon thereafter, A 1 and A 2 left on a bicycle.
There was swelling of the face and the blood vessels on the neck.
Prosecution then alleged that on 11th April.
He seized the incriminating articles which were found in the room.
Pushpavalli PW 4 who was in her house came out and saw the quarrels between Seethalakshmi on one hand and A 1 and A 2 on the other.
A 1 at the relevant time was doing the work of rickshaw puller and was earning his livelihood.
After companypleting the investigation, both the accused came to be charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC.
Being fed up with this atmosphere, Seethalakshmi came to her parents house.
She testified that on both sides of the front region of the neck, several nail scratch marks were seen.
He then left for Kumbakonam.
The said injury, however, did number extend sideward and backwards.
502 of 1994 and 501 of 1994 respectively to this Court.
The doctor then opined that indications for suffocation were seen.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Suseela V. State of Tamil Nadu WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 502 OF 1994 J U D G M E N T P. KURDUKAR, J. For companymitting the murder of Seethalakshmi, her husband Selvaraj A 1 and Suseela A 2 the wife of elder brother of A 1 were out up for trial for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Those marks were number present in this case.
Sometime thereafter, Pushpavalli PW 4 saw A 1 and A 2 going on a bicycle.
West Thanjavur at Thanjavur vide its judgment dated March 23, 1987 companyvicted both the accused under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced both of them to suffer life imprisonment and RI for three years respectively.
It was alleged by the prosecution that within ten days of marriage, A 1 sold away the gold ring presented to him at the time of wedding and soon thereafter, he also disposed of all jewellery items given to Seethalakshmi during her marriage.
The prosecution case entirely rested on the circumstantial evidence and in order to prove the same, it examined s many as 15 witnesses of whom Sunder Raj PW 5 turned hostile.
The right chamber of the heart was filled with blood whereas the left chamber was empty.
for the appellants G. Pragasam, Adv.
The stomach was found empty and the small intestine were filled with gas.
Two separate appeals were filed by A 1 and A 2 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the High Court by its companymon judgment dated July 22, 1993 dismissed the same.
