The case rested mainly on the evidence of P. Ws.
The said Muthukannu Thevar, besides the above house, was also owning two other houses in this locality, a garden land in Peru game Vallur and other house site.
Since an operation was necessary and it was companyducted by P.W. 14 but the deceased died on 30 6 78.
1 and 3 kept the injured in the auto rickshaw and took her to the Government Hospital.
Having married Saraswathi, he asked again a share in the house.
P.W. 16, the doctor who was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the Hospital treated the injuries.
After the death of his first wife, Muthukkannu Thevar married the deceased as his second wife.
The trial Court rejected the evidence of the two witnesses on the following ground 1 that the deceased being the mother in law of P. W. 2 would number have been companyversant with P.W. 2 in the terrace 2 that the companyduct of P. Ws.
The accused was arrested and after companypletion of investigation the charge sheet was laid.
The High Court having elaborately companysidered the evidence of P. Ws.
The abdominal wall at the site of injury was gangrenous with offensive smell.
Bose had married Saraswathi, the daughter of Mokkamayandi who is his maternal uncle.
3 and 4 or the neighbours to apprehend the accused indicates that P. Ws.
In the said dying declaration the deceased has clearly stated that the appellant stabbed her.
On hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 1 and the deceased P.Ws.
1 and 2, the eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence.
About six years prior to the occurrence, Bose died.
The sole applicant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Karuthammal, the deceased, by cutting her with a knife on her abdomen and left knee on 22 6 78 at about 9.30 p.m. as a result of which the deceased died in the Erskine Hospital, Madurai on 30 6 78.
1 and 2 had been living in Pykara which is adjacent to Madurai.
This is an appeal under Section 379 of the CrPC read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
3 and 4 were sitting in the threshold of the house.
While matter stood thus, at about 9 p.m. on 22 6 78 after taking food, P.W. 1 and her husband P.W. 2 were sitting in the open terrace in the first floor, the moon was shining bright and the street lamps were also burning.
The deceased was the step mother of the appellant and Muthukannu Thevar, husband of the deceased and father of the accused, was residing in a house in First Street, Ram Nagar, Marimedu, with Madurai City.
Meanwhile, the injured was being treated in the Hospital and the Judicial II Class Magistrate came to the Hospital at about 11.20 p.m. and recorded dying declaration of the injured Ex, P.13 which was attested by the doctor at the time of recording.
P. Ws.
The Sub Inspector came to the Hospital and he examined the deceased and registered the crime.
P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and she was given in marriage to P.W. 2.
The trial Court rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they companyld number have been residing in the house in which the occurrence has taken place.
About some days thereafter, the accused demanded the deceased for a partition and in that account there were some disputes.
1 and 2 figured as eye witnesses.
Thereafter his wife Saraswathi went to her parents house and lived with them.
Just then the accused came inside by passing through the doorway armed.
P.W. 13, the Doctor who companyducted the postmortem found that there were injuries to the small intestine.
The occurrence took place on 22 6 78 and the deceased died on 30 6 78.
1 and 2 shouted and the accused was seen brandishing the knife and threatening the people present there.
Hence the present appeal.
1 and 2 would number have been present at the time of occurrence and 3 the companyspicuous omission of the name of P. W. 1 in the Hospital Records would show that she would number have accompanied the injured.
3 and 4 came there and saw the accused running away.
The prosecution examined 25 wit nesses.
with the knife and stabbed the deceased on the abdomen and inflicted injury on the left knee.
After their marriage P.Ws.
His first wife was Meenakshi Ammal.
On account of this, the accused began to stay in the house of P.W. 12 Subbiah adjacent to the house of the deceased where he was giving trouble to the deceased and a companyplaint was given by her.
1 and 2 and the above reasons given by the trial Court has rightly held that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable.
Delay companydoned.
2 and 4 thereafter locked the house and went to the Hospital.
The accused and his elder brother Bose were born to Thevar through his first wife.
P.W. 16 informed the police also as it was a medico legal case.
He found one incised wound left and over the middle of abdominal wall and another simple injury on the left knee.
The death intimation was sent to the police in the Erskine Hospital Outpost.
As already numbered an operation was also companyducted but gangrenous got set in.
In an appeal against the said acquittal the Division Bench of the High Court in an elaborate judgment companysidered the entire evidence on record and the reasons given by the trial Court in rejecting the same and reached the companyclusion that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable and accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
However, a partition took place and it is alleged that the accused was living a wayward life and squandered away his properties.
Out of them P. Ws.
The deceased refused to give the share demanded by the accused.
1 and 2 either in number apprehending the accused in the terrace itself or in number requesting P. Ws.
