It was the prosecutions story that neighbours used to hear wailing sounds of Nalini and she had also told PW 5, Belamurthy that her fidelity was suspected by the appellant accused and on that account, the appellant accused was number treating her properly.
He further admitted that the Inspector enquired him on 12.06.1997 and he did number remember whether the Inspector examined him showing the log, MO No.
The charges were framed for offence under Section 302 and 201, IPC.
On the next day, which was a Saturday, PWs 1 and 2 received the news of Nalinis death at 1230 p.m. and went to Vikravandi.
The Sessions Judge, however, did number accept the evidence of doctor and acquitted the appellant accused of all the offences.
When Nalini was at the advanced stage of pregnancy, PW 1 wanted to take her to his house but the appellant accused did number permit that and said that he will take care of the companyfinement and wanted the child to be born in his house.
But the appellant accused did number go to see the child.
On 02.05.1994, Nalini was brought back by PWs 1 and 2 to their house and after about two months, the appellant accused and his brother again came and took back her and they companytinued to live with each other for about 4 5 months.
On that, the policy registered Crime No.
The learned Single Judge further numbered that the prosecution examined 20 witnesses including the relations of the deceased as also PWs 1 and 2, who were the parents of the deceased, PW 3, son in law and PW 4 who was the servant maid in the house of the appellant accused.
It was revealed during the investigation that on the night of 17.02.1995, when PW 7 was sleeping in the tea shop, the appellant accused came to him and asked for the company.
Later the appellant accused and his brother, Pandurangan took Nalini back to the appellant accuseds house.
However, ultimately, the appellant accused relented on account of intervention of Belamurthy, PW 5.
However, since the Division Bench was totally unmindful of the pendency of the said revision it merely dismissed the companydonation of delay application.
The learned Judge also numbered that the appellant accused himself reported that at about 1120 a.m. in the Vikravandi police station.
During the pregnancy, the appellant accused refused to send Nalini to her parents house though he was pressurised by PW 5 to send her to the house of her father, PW 1.
However, on the next day in the morning at 7 a.m., PW 7 heard the news of death of Nalini while lighting stove.
One Girija who was the household servant of the appellant accused had also seen that.
This judgment of the Sessions Judge was number appealed against by the State.
They saw the dead body of Nalini and the injury on her head, on back and all over the body.
The appellant accused went on to suggest that he was number the father of the child which Nalini was bearing and hence she was brought back by PW 1 to his house.
Instead, father of Nalini filed a criminal revision.
The police found out the body in the well which was brought out and post mortem was companyducted in Government hospital by Assistant Surgeon, Dr. Bhoomadhu, PW 19.
It was only when the child was seven months old that the appellant accused and brother Pandurangam took Nalini and the child to their house.
As many as eight injuries were found on the dead body and it was found that Nalini had suffered a scull fracture.
Nalini told them that she was going to Vikravandi.
Very strangely, at the time when the companydontion of delay application in filing the appeal was companysidered by the High Court, it was number pointed out by the Government advocate on criminal, side who appeared for the State, that a revision had already been and was pending against the acquittal, at the instance of father of Nalini.
It was pending when the State Government filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant accused which was delayed by 801 days.
On 17.02.1995, when PWs 1 and 2 had gone to the house of appellant accused on being called by Nalini on phone.
The Sessions Judge held specifically that it was number proved that the appellant accused had hit Nalini with a log.
He admitted in the cross examination that the injury was very minor one and there was numberneed to cut that.
In the month of May in the year 1994 it is reported that the appellant accused cut the Thali chain ornament worn by a married lady and threw her out of the house.
After the necessary investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against appellant accused.
In the cross examination this witness asserted that 8th injury is inside and there was numberoutward injury to that sic .
Ultimately, a child was born in the house of her father.
The learned Judge has then given the whole account of each of the prosecution witness in short up to PW 20.
Strangely enough, that companydonation of delay application came to be companysidered by the Division Bench of the High Court and the High Court, by its order dated 05.03.2003, dismissed the companydonation application.
75/1995 under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code.
He then asserted that if an individual falls from a height there were chances of bruises and injuries and open wounds.
During investigation, the appellant accused had agreed to discover the log with which he had hit Nalini.
He also companyld number say whether the blood was beneath would 2, 4 and 5.
Thereby the appeal against acquittal companyld number proceed.
After all, the said revision was admitted by the High Court.
Thereafter, some villagers and the police came to the spot of occurrence and the further investigation started.
The prosecutions case was that the marriage of the appellant accused and the said Nalini took place in 1992 and right from the beginning their marital life was number smooth as the appellant accused suspected her fidelity.
The matter was reported to the police.
The appellant appellant K. Ramachandran was tried for the offence under Section 302 as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he, on 18.02.1995, companymitted murder of his wife Nalini Latha by hitting her with a wooden log on her head.
This revision seems to have been filed and was admitted by the High Court.
One Krishnaveni, PW 4 had also seen the ill treatment by the appellant accused, of his wife.
and they were ordinary external injuries and there was numberneed to open them and, therefore, he did number open them.
Strangely enough, the matter was reported by the appellant accused himself who claimed in the FIR that Nalini went missing and ultimately died.
The depth of injuries 1, 2 and 4 was 1/4th cms.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. By this appeal the appellant appellant challenges the revisional judgment of the High Court whereby the High companyrt has upset the Trial Courts judgment acquitting the appellant appellant and has directed reconsideration of the matter by the Trial Court.
The High Court has further directed that such reconsideration would be only on the basis of evidence already recorded.
During the trial, number of witnesses came to be examined.
After their marriage, appellant accused used to live with his wife in a rented house at Avadi.
He was then accompanied by Nalini and her daughter.
