Corroboratio of ex-parte judicial confession necessary.

This appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No. 84 of 1986 for the offence under Sec. 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code sentencing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years to the first appellant and five years each to the appellants 2 and 3.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: The appellants 2 and 3 are the parents of the first appellant. The deceased Kodimalar, sister of P.W. 1. and daughter of P.W. 2., was married to the first appellant about five years prior to her death. At the time of the marriage the deceased Kodimalar was given some jewels and vessels and the first accused was given a Rallys cycle as marriage gift. About two years prior to this occurrence, the younger sister of Kodimalar was married to P.W. 4 and apart from the jewels to his wife, he was presented with a motorcycle. The first accused, who was given only a cycle at the time of his marriage, was insisting his wife Kodimalar to get a motor-cycle for him also as was presented to P.W. 4. Quarrel arose between the husband and wife and the deceased came to her parents’ house about 10 days prior to this occurrence on account of the misunderstanding between her and the first accused and on 19. 1985, the second accused himself came to take back his daughter-in-law. P.W. 1, his mother P.W. 2 and their first son-in-law P.W. 3 advised the deceased Kodimalar to adjust herself with her husband and the second accused took her to his house. On 19. 1985 at about 9.00.p.m. P.Ws.7 and 8, natives of Vaduvoor Pudukkottai, had been to a nearby village to purchase the seedlings for their lands and while they were passing through the occurrence village close to the house of the accused, they heard the voice of the deceased saying not to cut her. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 paused for a while and saw these three accused and the deceased in their house but as they felt that it was a domestic quarrel in the family they did not interfere and proceeded on their way. Next day morning P.W.3., the first son-in-law to the family of P.Ws. 1 and 2 residing in Pudukkottai Village; 2 kilometres away from the occurrence village came to know from P.W. 5 that Kodimalar died. Immediately, he sent a message through P.W. 6 and another to the family of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who immediately rushed to the house of these accused. They found the body of the deceased Kodimalar laid on the varandah and none of these accused were present in the house. They also found an injury on the head of the deceased and therefore suspecting foul-play in the death of Kodimalar P.W. 1 went to Vadalur Police Station and launched the complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W. 12, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the same in Crime No. 193 of 1985 and prepared the F.I.R. which was sent to the Court stating suspicious death. P.W. 18, the Inspector of Police, who received the F.I.R. took up the investigation and proceeded to the occurrence village Kattakudi. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-6 in the presence of the Village Officer P.W. 16 and prepared plan Ex.P-17. In the presence of the Panchayatars, he conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-18. He arranged to send the body of the deceased for postmortem and seized the broomstick M.O. 5 under Ex.P-7 mahazar. He also seized the saree and jacket M.O. 6 and 7 used by the deceased, under Ex.P-8 mahazar, P.W. 14, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Mannarkudi, conducted the post-mortem along with two other doctors, on 29. 1985 and they found a lacerated wound of 6 cm x 2 cm upto bone depth, on the back of the head 1½ cm above the occipital protuberance and correspondingly extravasation of blood beneath the scalp on the occipital region with irregual ‘V’ shaped fracture on the occipital bone. The intestine, liver and kidney were sent for chemical analysis and Ex.P.-4 report of the Forensic Laboratory proved the presence of Ph