The appellant then went to the house of his parents with his daughter and leaving her behind came back to his house with Krishnan Nair.
a According to the prosecution case on November 16, 1989 around 8.00 P.M. the appellant slapped the deceased on her cheek and when she sat down on the floor he kicked on her chest, as a result of which she became unconscious.
THE 14TH DAT OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas F. Vinod, Adv.
Later on the investigation was taken over by C.I.D. and on companypletion thereof charge sheet was submitted.
An information about the death of Lalithambika was sent to his brother Prabhakaran P.W.1 in that night.
He then pacified her and took her to the temple.
He became suspicious as to the manner of the death of his sister as he was told that she was electrocuted.
He knocked the door violently but did number get any response from his wife.
for the appellant Ms. Malini Poduval, Adv.
Shri S. Sasikumaran Nair P.W.15 , Additional District Magistrate of Thiruvananthapuram held inquest upon the dead body and thereafter sent it to Forensic Medicine Department of the local Medical College for companyducting autopsy.
After returning home around 7.45 P.M. when he was watching television Remya said that she was feeling hungry.
They then, brought the deceased down after untying the saree by which she was hanging and laid her on a company.
Both the trial Court and the appellate Court held that each of the above circumstances stood companyclusively proved and as, according to them, those circumstances companysidered cumulatively unerringly pointed to the guilt of the appellant recorded their respective findings against him.
Reaching the house they gave an impression that the door was locked from inside and, accordingly, broke it open.
With the help of neighbours when he broke open he found his wife hanging from the rafter of the kitchen.
G. Prakash Ad.
Dr. Sreekumari P.W.16 , and Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, held autopsy upon the dead body and submitted her report.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges and his defence was that his wife was number on companydial terms with her family as she wanted to dispose of her share in their ancestral property to which objection was raised by her brother Prabhakaran P.W.1 and sister Rajeswari Amma W.2 .
Krishnan Nair and the parents of the appellant lived in separate houses nearby.
The appellant married Lalithambika the deceased on October 26, 1984 and a daughter Remya was born to them on August 13, 1985.
On the following morning he lodged a report at the Vanchiyoor police station where a case of suspicious death was registered.
NP for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T MUKHERJEE.J. Rajendran Nair, the appellant before us, along with his brother in law Krishnan Nair was placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge of Thiruvananthapuram to answer charges under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. respectively.
P.W.1 passed on the information to his sister Rajeshwari Amma P.W.2 at Thirumala and then went of the house of the appellant.
They used to reside in a small house on the numberthern side of Kozhiyodu Lane within the limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation.
The trial Court companyvicted them of both the offences and aggrieved thereby they preferred an appeal in the High Court.
Then the appellant along with his mother and brother Prem Kumar P.W.9 took the deceased to the General Hospital where Dr. Sharaffuddin W.14 examined her and declared her head.
While acquitting Krishnan Nair, the High Court upheld the companyvictions of the appellant.
Hence this appeal at his instance.
Thereafter they closed the door and went out only to return a little later.
With his assistance he took his wife to the kitchen and suspended her from the rafter on the ceiling using her saree as the ligature.
