Nadimuthu And Ors vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

2. The procecution case is that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased is the elder brother of accused nos.1 to 3. Accused no. 4 is the father of the deceased and accussed nos.1 to 3. PW .1 is the daughter-in- law of accused no.4. The deceased and the procecution witnesses are the residents of Sodiankadu village. PW.1 married the deceased about 9 years prior of the date of occurance. PW.1 and the appeallants herein lived as a joint family. It is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. PW.1 was having a five and half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time of occurance. PW.1's father was looking after his daughter and children. On 14.7.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came in a bicycle to his house. PW.1 offered him food, but he refused to eat. He enquired from PW.1 as to where his father was. At that time, accused no. 4, the father of the deceased was in the house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him, but he refused to give him the money since he was allegedly leading a wayward life. The deceased threatened accused no.4. At that time, accused nos.1 to 3 were sitting in the tractor shed. The mother of the deceased was in the kitchen. Accused no.4 decided to finish off the deceased since he had threatened him. Suddenly accused no.1 chased the deceased and caught hold of him and accused no.4 instructed accused no. 3 to bring a rope. There was a streetlight burning at that time.Accused nos.1 to 3 tied the deceased with the rope. On seeing that, PW.1 shouted and the deceased also asked to leave him. After tying the deceased, they brought him to a tractor shed. Immediately, accused no. 1 took a wooden reeper and beat the deceased on his forehead. Blood oozed out from his forehead. PW.1 cried and the deceased also shouted asking them to leave him. At that time, PW .4 came there and asked them as to why they are beating the deceased. The accused told him that it being their famiy affiar, he should not interfere. Immediately PW.4 left the place. Thereafter, accused no.1 attacked the deceased again with the wooden reeper on his right wrist. PW.6 and one Gangammal intervened and asked them as to why they were attacking the deceased. They were also warned by the accused not to interfere, since it was their family affairs. Thereafterm they also left th place. Even after the attack, since the deceased did not breathe his last, accused no.3 brought a rope and accused nos. 1and 2 tied it on the neck of the deceased and strangled him. Further, accused no.3 brought pesticide at the instance of accused no.4. Accused no. 1 held the head of the deceased and accused no.2 poured the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased. PW.1 who was standing outside shouted. Immediately, the mother-in-law sprinkled some water on her face. The deceased was found dead. On receipt of the information, the villegers came to the scene of occurence. The accused threatened PW. 1 that she will also meet the same fate as the deceased if she told the truth. Hence before the village Administrative Officer, PW.1 stated everything by the accused, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. The same was forwarded along with the report, Ex.P.6. to Thiruthraipoondi Police Station through a meinal servant. Thereafter the father of PW.1 reached there and asked her as to what transpired. She narrated to him what really happened as also to the police. After fifteen days, she also gave a statement before the judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, which was marked as Ex.P.2.

4. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.1996 found the accused guilty under section 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment mentioned of the said judgment.

8. The accused have committed a heinous crime and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.