The conviction for murder upheld, highlighting that circumstantial evidence and established patterns of cruelty can substantiate claims beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M.Jothiraman J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.382 of 2006 dated 15.03.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, in and by which the appellant was convicted under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. The deceased was married to the accused about five years prior to the occurrence. It is the prosecution case that the accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife and being unemployed, subjected her to continuous cruelty and physical assault. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased had earlier stayed with her mother (P.W.1) for a considerable period. Subsequently, upon the assurance given by the accused that he would mend his ways and take proper care of his wife, a separate residence was arranged for them at Chennai. However, the accused allegedly continued to ill treat the deceased by beating and strangulating her.

2.2. On 14.08.2005, following a serious assault, the deceased was found unconscious and was taken to the hospital by the accused. Based on the complaint lodged by PW1, a case was registered. Despite medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem report revealed that the death was due to compression of the neck, an unnatural cause. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that the accused is responsible for causing the death of his wife.

2.3. PW1- Tmt.Kodi Pavunu, the mother of the deceased, deposed that her second daughter was married to the accused about five years prior to the date of occurrence. According to her, the accused, who was unemployed, used to subject the deceased to cruelty. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased, along with her children, stayed at PW1’s house for about 1 ¼ year. Thereafter, the accused assured that he had reformed and promised to live peacefully with his wife. Believing his assurance, PW1 arranged a rented house at Chennai by paying Rs.3,000/- and sent her daughter to reside with the accused. PW1 also stayed with her daughter for five days and then returned back to her village, after giving them a peace of advise. When the deceased again complained about the conduct of the accused, PW1 sent her husband and brother to question him. Upon their intervention, the accused assured them that he would not assault his wife thereafter and that he would take proper care of her. However, the deceased later informed PW1 that the accused continued to assault her, caused injury to her forehead, strangulated her, and hit her head against the wall and requested PW1 to visit her. On 17.08.2005, when PW1 went to the deceased house, she was informed by one Rajathi -PW3 that the deceased had been taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. After seeing the deceased being admitted in the hospital, PW1 lodged a complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1.After ten days of treatment, the deceased died.

2.4. PW2- Tr.Narasingu, brother of PW1 corroborated her evidence. He stated that the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and frequently assaulted her. Unable to bear the cruelty, the deceased stayed at PW1’s house for three months. Three months prior to the occurrence, the accused promised that he would not assault his wife and take care of her. Thereafter, PW1 took the deceased to Chennai and arranged a separate res