The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the admissibility of evidence, and the legal principles related to circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession.

M.Thanikachalam, J.

The accused in S.C. No.34/93 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Salem is the appellant.

2. The accused/appellant was directed to face the prosecution, for the offence under section 302 IPC on the ground that he had committed the murder of his brother's wife, by name Pushpa, on 29.9.91 with an intention to commit murder, by causing cut injuries, at about 12 noon.

3. Upon considering all the materials placed before him, the learned Principal Sessions Judge satisfied himself, to proceed further after framing the charge against the accused. The accused refused to plead guilty, when the charge was explained to him, thereby compelling the prosecution to make out a case, for his conviction.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, to prove the charge, 16 witnesses have been examined, seeking aid not only from 23 exhibits, but also from material objects. The scanning and the weighing of the above materials, in its proper perspective, revealed the fact that the accused had committed the murder of his brother's wife by using M.O.12, causing cut injuries. Thus, concluding the learned trial Judge, by his judgment dated 27.4.93, convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302, IPC to undergo life imprisonment, which is in challenge before us.

5. Facts in brief leading to the conviction:- The accused is the younger brother of Thiru Boomi Udaiyar (PW1). PW1 married one Pushpa, as his second wife after the demise of the first wife, by name Pappathi. PW1 has a son and a daughter through the first wife. The son's name is Kesavamurthi, and the daughter is Sasikala (PW2). They are all residing in the same house.

6. The accused had illicit intimacy with the wife of PW1 and the same was one day witnessed by PW1, when they were in a compromising mood. In order to solve the dispute, PW1 convened a panchayat which was presided by Murugesa Udayar (PW5) on 28.9.91. In the panchayat, PW4 – Pachamuthu also participated since he was present when the dispute had arisen between the parties on 26.9.91. In the panchayat, the accused and Pushpa were called and after discussion, the accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, with warning to discontinue their illegal activities, which caused irksome to the accused, resulting warning also, to Pushpa aiming her life. When this behaviour of the accused was noticed by PW5, he also warned him to behave properly, at least thereafter. The accused felt that he was put to shame, before the panchayatdars and decided to take vengeance.

7. On 29.9.91, PW1 went to the lands for his day-to-day work. PW2 and her step-mother namely, Pushpa were in their house, and it seems Pushpa was in the cattle shed. The accused came there, at about 12 noon in M.O.13 cycle, having koduval M.O.12 hanged in the handle bar. It was witnessed by Parvathi (PW3). The accused assaulted Pushpa, causing multiple cut injuries, which was witnessed by PW2. PW2 immediately informed the same to his father PW1. The accused after assaulting Pushpa returned in the same cycle (MO13) which was also witnessed by PW3. At about 12.30 pm on the same day, when PW8 was doing his agricultural work the accused went there. By seeing the blood stain in the dress, when PW8 questioned, the accused confessed about his act namely, cutting the wife of his brother. Thereafter, leaving the cycle with the custody of PW8, informing him, that he is proceeding to Kollimalai, the accused left the place of PW8.

8. On information by PW2, when PW1 went to the scene of crime he noticed the dead body of his wife, and therefore, in order to have redress he approached the police at about 2 pm.

9. Thiru Chinnathambi, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Erumapatti police station, on the basis of the information furnished by PW1, reduced the same into writing (Ex.P1) and on that basis he registered a case in Crime No.391/91 under section 302 IPC, for which he submitted the printed FIR Ex.P21 to the court concerned, marking a copy also to the Inspector of Police fo