Challenging the said order, the appellant accused filed Criminal Appeal No.
According to her, she knows the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her child as her neighbours.
Since she disconnected the phone immediately, PW 1 tried to companytact her but he companyld number get it.
It was further revealed during investigation that the appellant accused with the intention of causing disappearance of evidence and in order to show it a suicidal case, caused death of Vijayalakshmi and her daughter by pouring kerosene and set them on fire.
792 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence dated 30.07.2007 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in Sessions Case No.
After one week of the said incident, it was published in the newspapers that the deceased had number companymitted suicide but it was a case of murder.
The appellant accused told her number to shout.
Similarly, on 19.08.2003 and 25.08.2003, she was examined by Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate Court respectively and she deposed the entire truth before them.
The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 30.07.2007, companyvicted the appellant accused under Sections 376, 302, 302 read with 201 and 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment RI for 7 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
On the same day, PW 1 registered a companyplaint with the Yercaud Police Station which was registered as Crime No.
56 of 2004.
Taking undue advantage of her companydition, the appellant accused had sexual intercourse with her.
On several occasions, she was forced and even harassed to arrange money from her paternal home in order to fulfill the demand of dowry.
It is also clear from her evidence that the accused had taken kerosene from her house stating that it was required for cleaning the machine and thereafter, when PW 2 came out, she was called by the accused to his house where she witnessed the deceased and her child lying unconscious in the kitchen.
After one year of the marriage, a baby girl was born out of the said wedlock.
It was also revealed during investigation that the appellant accused arranged kerosene for the same from one Selvi PW 2 the neighbour, on the pretext of cleaning a machine.
When Vijayalakshmi resisted him, he struck a blow with poorikatai on her head due to which she fell unconscious.
After seeing this, she asked the appellant accused You sinner.
She narrated that on 15.08.2003, when she was having lunch at her home, the appellant accused called her and asked for some Kerosene for cleaning the machine.
She also identified the accused in the Court.
On his direction, PW 2 made a call to the elder brother of the deceased over phone.
He also narrated the whole incident to her and even threatened her to give a call to PW 1 impersonating the deceased, which she did.
When she questioned the accused about the same, he admitted to her about the occurrence and companypelled her to speak to PW 1 impersonating the deceased by threatening her.
It is also clear that among all the prosecution witnesses, PW 2 was the only witness who saw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant accused has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
His evidence further disclosed that he hurriedly reached his sisters house around 7 p.m., where he saw that his younger sister and the child were burnt to death and were lying on the back of the floor.
It is only PW 2 before whom the accused had companyfessed about the companymission of offence under Section 376.
Thereafter, he told her that he had an eye on his sister in law.
In addition to this, her brother in law, Kumar the appellant accused had bad intentions towards her.
At 3.30 p.m., PW 1 got a call from his elder brother that Vijayalakshmi and her baby died due to burn injuries.
350/2003 under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
P 25 issued by Dr. R. Vallimayagam PW 20 , who examined the accused and the evidence of Tmt.
After the marriage, she was staying at her matrimonial home in a joint family companysisting of her husband, Krishnan father in law , Chellammal mother in law and Kumar the appellant accused, brother in law of the deceased.
On 17.08.2003, when she was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she deposed all the details to him.
One Mariyayi was examined as PW 3.
Thereafter, the accused squashed her neck and threatened her number to tell this matter to anyone, otherwise, he will kill her also.
On the basis of the above said investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein under Sections 376, 302, 302/201 and 506 2 of IPC and the case was companymitted to the companyrt of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Salem which was numbered as Sessions Case No.56 of 2004.
Thereafter, he spoke to his sister in law Mariyayi PW 3 about the same and asked her to visit the house of the deceased.
It is the case of the prosecution that after the birth of the girl child, the deceased was harassed and tortured by her husband and in laws to bring money from her parents in order to take care of the baby.
Though Mr. Krishnamurhty, learned senior companynsel for the appellant raised a doubt about the phone call by showing the telephone number and other details, if we companysider the evidence of PW 1 along with the evidence of PW 2, there is numberreason to doubt the veracity of their evidence.
792 of 2007 before the High Court.
On 15.08.2003, at 2.00 p.m., the deceased called her brother Chandrabose PW 1 over phone and informed him that her husband and in laws are torturing her for the money and asked him to bring the money immediately, within one hour, failing which, she would kill her and her child.
Immediately thereafter, he attacked her 13 months old baby Srimathi who was playing nearby by giving a forcible punch on her face on account of which she also became unconscious.
The analysis of the evidence of PW 2 clearly shows that the extra judicial companyfession was made by the accused to her, who is a neighbour.
Thereafter, he along with his elder brothers Thangavelu and Balasubramaniam, went to Yercaud Police Station and informed the incident.
During investigation, the role of the appellant accused came to light whose intention was to rape her sister in law and, on the fateful day, when she was alone, he even attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.
He also said that he punched the baby on her numbere who was playing nearby and when the child cried, he put the child also near to his sister in law.
Brief facts The marriage of Vijayalakshmi the deceased and Thiruselvam was solemnized on 06.09.2001 at Murugan Nagar, Zerinakadu, Yercaud, Tamil Nadu.
In her evidence, she further deposed that at about 2.00 p.m., she ran from there and again returned to their house at 4.00 p.m. and saw that lot of persons were gathered at the spot.
Taking numbere of the death of a 13 months old baby along with her mother by burning in the matrimonial home, the Superintendent of Police, Yercaud, himself took up the investigation.
Heard Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned senior companynsel for the appellant accused and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.
Thereafter, he raped her and he also informed PW 2 that he will make it as if she had companymitted suicide.
She further deposed that the accused informed her that since numberody was there in the house, he embraced her but when she did number agree for the same, he took a wooden ruler used to make poorikattai and gave a blow on her head due to which, she became unconscious and fell down.
Kamalatchi PW 11 , the Scientific Officer, who examined the brief O. 15 and detected semen in it as per the Chemical Report Exh.
By impugned judgment dated 23.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant accused by the trial Court.
On 16.08.2003, she was examined by Revenue Divisional Officer but she did number depose much to him.
She further numbericed from the kitchen that Vijayalakshmi and her child were burnt and lying in the hall.
What did you do to her?
Contentions Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned senior companynsel for the appellant made the following companytentions At the foremost, the companyviction solely based on the extra judicial companyfession made to one Selvi PW 2 cannot be sustained since she had number disclosed the same at the earliest point of time.
Inasmuch as PWs 4 8 were examined after a period of 10 15 days, their statements are number reliable.
Thereafter, PW 1 companytacted at his brothers residence as well as his sister in law PW 3 and informed about the demand made by the deceased over phone and asked PW 3 to visit the place of the deceased and apprise him.
P 8 , there is numberdoubt about the role of the appellant accused in companymitting rape and double murder.
Sathasivam,J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
When she went there, the accused called her inside the house where she saw that Vijayalakshmi and her daughter lying without any sign of life.
At the relevant time, she was working as an Assistant of Nutritious Meal in Mungagambadi School.
