The case was companymitted for sessions trial.
The witness affirmed as well that their statements were recorded by PW9 Kamalakannan, whereafter they had taken the appellants to the police station following which they were arrested.
PW2 Rajan, who was also a resident of Idaiyamsathu Village, deposed that the appellant Nathiya did number respect the deceased as her husband, who did number know swimming and cycling.
The informant referred to the accused persons as the suspects.
Eventually the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons.
He admitted as well to have number disclosed the illicit relationship between the appellants to the police.
1011 of 2010 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned companynsel for the State.
It was incidentally mentioned as well that they were number available in their house at that point of time.
This FIR was registered as Bagayam P.S. Crime No.
deep on the rear part of the head.
He admitted that the appellant Nathiya and her daughter were the only legal heirs of the deceased and that numberincriminating material was recovered by the police from the house of Nathiya.
2 is allegedly the paramour of accused No.
In cross examination, he denied the defence suggestion that the the grand father of the deceased had executed a will in favour of him as well as the deceased.
It was averred in the FIR that the deceased was a book binder by occupation and owned some properties located in his village, worth several lakhs.
We have heard Mr. Jayant Muthur Raja, learned companynsel for the appellant Nathiya, in Criminal Appeal No.
He owned the FIR lodged by him and reiterated the suspicion about the culpability of the two appellants.
The house of the appellant Suresh was also situated nearby.
1015 of 2010, Mr. P.R. Kovilan, learned companynsel for the appellant Suresh, in Criminal Appeal No.
10000/ , in default R.I. for further six months, by the High Court by its verdict dated 27.11.2008, seek this Courts panacean intervention for redress.
The appellants having denied the charge, were made to stand trial and finally by the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed in S.C. No.
He admitted too that the well was located at a distance of 2.5 feet from the house of Packiammal and that there were other houses situated within 200 feets from there.
The prosecution was set in motion by the First Information Report lodged on 27.3.2006 at 2.30 a.m. by one Gunasekaran, the companysin brother of the deceased Gurunathan, the husband of the appellant Nathiya accused No.
The appellant Suresh accused No.
He also had his own house.
He also stated that the companyfessional statements were handed over to the police.
