Case: Kala @ Chandrakala Vs. State Tr.Insp.Of Police

1. The appellant is the wife of the deceased Murugesan. The prosecution has alleged that the appellant along with her father and nephew committed murder of Murugesan on 17.5.2005 by strangulating him with a saree and placed his body under a bridge of canal. On 20.5.2005, on the basis of the information received from the Village Administrative Officer that a gunny bag is lying under LBP canal south near Sandhiyapurm, the complaint was registered. The body was found in a highly decomposed condition as such initially the identification of the person could not be ascertained. On 21.5.2005 Dr. Sivakumar P.W.20 performed the autopsy. Doctor was unable to ascertain the cause of death as the body was in a highly decomposed condition and it was opined by him that there was no antemortem injury to hyoid bone. On 31.5.2005 Susheela, P.W. 4, sister of the deceased, lodged a complaint that her brother Murugesan was murdered by his wife, his father-in-law and nephew of wife.The trial court convicted the appellant and her father for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. The appeal, preferred before the High Court, was allowed in respect of the father of the accused, but the conviction and sentence of the appellant has been affirmed. Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been

Reasoning:
13. In the instant case, which is based on the circumstantial evidence, particularly when the body has not been recovered at the instance of the accused, the recoveries of moped and piece of nylon saree which were made are not proved to be related to commission of offence, they are not proved to be incriminating materials. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Susheela, P.W.4 is prima facie unusual and doubtful and is not corroborated by other evidence on record. Merely, the fact that the deceased had left the house on 16.5.2005, as per version of appellant, cannot be used as a circumstance against her so as to fasten guilt. The deceased used to drink alcohol and used to spend money recklessly. Due to his bad habits, there may be so many enemies of him. How the deceased spent the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which he received on execution of agreement is not on record. The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The father of appellant has also been extended benefit of doubt. As such, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt in view of the evidence which has been adduced by the