P. Thangavelu v. State rep. bythe Inspector of Police,R.K. Pet Police Station,Thiruthani

2. On 19.04.2000, at 2.30 A.M., the accused, who was residing ina hut at Edapattarai @ Padmanabhapuram Village which falls within thejurisdiction of R.K. Pettai Police Station, called his wife for sexand on her refusal, with an intention to cause death, assaulted heron the right cheek below the right ear by giving a violent fist andas a result thereof, she became unconscious. Thereafter, hestrangled her by tying a rope around the neck and thereby causeddeath to her; hence, the trial Judge framed the first charge for anoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC.After committing the murder of the deceased, the accused carriedthe dead body to a nearby brook adjacent to the sand-quarry andburied the body with an intention to screen the offence committed byhim; thus, the second charge under Section 201 IPC. was framed, andthe case was taken up for trial.3. The case of the prosecution, as unfurled by its witnesses, isas follows:-a) PW-1 is the Village Administrative Officer of PadmanabhapuramVillage. On 03.05.2000, at about 9 A.M., the accused came to him andgave a statement under Ex.P1 to the effect that his wife/deceasedrefused his call for sexual intercourse, whereupon, he assaulted herbelow her cheek and after she had become unconscious, he tied ropearound her neck and shifted the dead body to a nearby brook andburied her there. Thereafter, PW-1 took the accused to the policestation accompanied by PWs-2 and 3, V.A.Os. of neighbouring Villages,who were standing at the Bus-Stand.b) PW-16 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of thereport given by PW-1 under Ex.P2, attested by PWs-2 and 3, along withthe statement of the accused, registered a case in Crime No.232 of2000 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He preparedExpress F.I.R. and despatched the same to his superior officers andthe Revenue Divisional Officer. Ex.P8 is the Printed F.I.R. c) PW-17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the ExpressReport, took up investigation and he was assisted by PW-16, the SubInspector of Police. He examined the accused and recorded hisstatement in the presence of witnesses. As the accused stated that hewould show the place where he concealed the body of the deceased, PW-17 took him along with PW-1 and other witnesses to the scene ofoccurrence and the accused pointed out the place where he had buriedthe dead body. PW-17 instructed PW-13 and Village Thalayari (VillageHead) to guard the place where the body was buried and returned backto the police Station. He gave a requisition to the RevenueDivisional Officer, Tiruttani, for exhumation of the dead body and acopy of such requisition was sent to PW-10 Tahsildar. He also maderequisition to the Medical Officer, Chennai Medical College, forconducting post mortem over the dead body of the deceased at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ site, where the dead body was buried. On 04.05.2000, PW-10 Tahsildarconducted enquiry, during which time, PW-17 was present and assistedhim. PW-17 prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P5 and rough sketch underExs.P-9 & P-10. He caused photographs of that place to be takenthrough a Photographer and MO-13 series are the photographs. d) On 05.05.2000, at about 4 P.M., PW-12, the Medical Officerreached the scene of occurrence and the body of the deceased wasdisinterred. The body was in a highly decomposed condition and theneck was found to be tied with a rope. Autopsy was conducted at thesite and the post-mortem certificate issued is marked as Ex.P-6,wherein, the following has been noticed:-" Body lies on back with flexion of right leg,flexion and abduction of left leg, right forearmprotruding outside the soil. The body was coveredwith red sari with multiple coloured flowers (fromhead to foot). There was a rope (160 cm. X 1.5 cm.breadth) around the neck in three rounds. Both earshave studded. Right nose has nose-screw. No mettiseen on her toes. Left palm is missing. Rightforearm missing. Both legs are seen.Injuries:1)Abrasion and ecchymosis 5 x 3 cm. on right cheek infront of ear 2) On removal of rope the underlying skin and rest ofthe skin on the neck is decomposed. Soft tissues andneck muscles are seen contused.Thyroid cartilage is not seen.Both the horns of hyoid bone are seen fracture withcontusion at the fracture site.Larynx and trachea are seen bruised.HEART: Early autolytic changes seenLUNGS:Cut section: DecomposedSTOMACH:Empty Mucosa-decomposedKIDNEYS: DecomposedoBLADDER: EmptyUTERUS: Uterine cavity empty. Ovaries pale 6x5x2.5cm. sizeBRAIN: Autolysed.OPINION:"DIED OF ASPHYXIA DUE TO STRANGULATION' "e) After post mortem, the Inspector of Police seized the dressmaterials, jewels and skull of the deceased and forwarded the same tothe Magistrate Court through a Constable with a requisition to sendthose items for chemical examination, whereupon, the JudicialMagistrate forwarded those materials to the Forensic Laboratoryaccompanied by his letter Ex.P11. f) During the course of investigation, PW-17 examined PWs-4 to 6, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who are workers in the quarry where the accused was working. It istheir evidence that both the accused and the deceased were livingnearby the quarry in a hut and on the previous day, the accused,after completing his work, returned back to his residence and boththe accused and the deceased were staying together at that time. Onthe next day, the accused complained to them that her wife was foundmissing and in search of her, he went to the village of PW-7, who isthe father of the deceased, taking his child with him accompanied byPW-4 and her husband. g) PW-7, the father of the deceased, after receiving theintimation about the missing of the deceased, searched for her in thenearby places; thereafter, on coming to know that her daughter wasdone to death by the accused, he came to the spot where post mortemwas conducted and identified the deceased as his daughter.h) PWs-8 and 9 are brothers of the deceased, who corroborated theevidence of PW-7, their father. They were also present at the timeof post mortem and after seeing the nose-screw, ear-stud and dressmaterials of the deceased and looking at the face of the corpse, theyidentified the deceased as that of their sister. i) PW-10, the Tahsildar, who conducted enquiry and madearrangements for exhumation of the body, on conclusion of theautopsy, handed over the dead body of the deceased to her relatives.The report, dated 06.07.2000, sent by him to the Police in thatregard is Ex.P3. In his evidence, he has stated that the body of thedeceased was identified by her relatives PWs-7 to 9 by looking at thedress materials and jewels on the body as well as the face of thedeceased. j) PW-11 is the mahazar witness for recovery of ear-stud MO-1,nose-screw MO-2, saree MO-3, petticoat MO4, blouse MO5 and rope MO-6,and he attested recovery mahazar Ex.P4 and Observation Mahazar Ex.P5.k) PW-13 is the Police Constable, who, on the direction of theInvestigating Officer, guarded the place of occurrence till thearrival of Tahsildar and Medical Officer for exhumation andconducting autopsy over the dead body. l) PW-14 is the Head Constable through whom the Material Objectsrecovered from the body of the deceased and scene of occurrence weredespatched to Court with Ex.P12, requisition of the InvestigatingOfficer. He obtained the letter of the Magistrate Ex.P11 and handedover the material objects at the Forensic Laboratory. Ex.P14 is thereport of the Serologist. m)PW-15 is the Scientific Assistant. She deposed that, on17.5.2000, she received a photograph of the deceased along with askull in two parts accompanied by Ex.P13, letter of the Magistrate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and conducted superimposition test with the aid of the Photograph.MOs.9 to 12 are the test photographs of the skull and that of thedeceased. PW-15 opined that the skull fits in with the person foundin the photograph. Ex.P7 is the report given by her in that regard. n) PW-17, the Inspector of Police, after collecting all relevantmaterials including medical and forensic reports, filed final reporton 04.08.2000 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 4. The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt ofthe accused, examined PWs-1 to 17, marked Exs.P.1 to P-14 andproduced MOs-1 to 13.5. On conclusion of the trial, the accused was questioned underSection 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminatingmaterials/circumstances adduced by the prosecution. The accuseddenied commission of the offence and pleaded innocence. No oral anddocumentary evidence was adduced by the defence. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convictedand sentenced him as aforementioned. Hence, the present Appeal.6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eyewitness for commission of the offence by the accused and, concededly,the occurrence took place during midnight at 02.30 A.M. inside theresidence of the accused. Apart from the statement given by theaccused to PW-1/VAO, there are no clinching materials whatsoever toconnect the accused with the crime. Though there is a prohibitionfor recording confession statement by a Village AdministrativeOfficer, in the case on hand, an erroneous procedure has been adoptedand based on such statement, investigation has been taken up.Inasmuch as the F.I.R. is based on a statement recorded in deviationfrom the established procedure, the whole case of the prosecution,which rests on such statement that had come into existence through animproper channel, must be thrown out. The other limb of the argument is that even if the statement ofthe accused is accepted to be acted upon, the starting point of thetussle between the accused and the deceased, which ultimately led tothe assault by the accused, should not be ignored. According to him,when the accused requested the deceased to accompany for sex, it isthe deceased who refused and, on being provoked by that, the accusedis said to have assaulted the deceased on her cheek, as a result ofwhich, she became unconscious and died, and only thereafter, thinkingthat blood may ooze out from the body of the deceased, the accusedtied rope around her neck; in such circumstances, the first assaultalleged to have been caused by the accused is not a voluntary andintentional one and as it was the outcome of provocation by the actof the deceased, at any rate, the offence under Section 302 IPC. isnot made out and hence, a lesser sentence may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Learned counsel further submitted that though it is the positivecase of the prosecution that dead body of the deceased is that of thewife of the accused, the procedure followed for establishing theidentity of the deceased is not in consonance with the legalprocedure prescribed. The occurrence took place on 19.04.2000 andthe exhumation took place on 05.05.2000, ie., 16 days after theoccurrence. As the dead body was in a highly decomposed condition,it would not have been possible for PWs-7 to 10 to confirm theidentity of the deceased; that being so, as the identity of thedeceased has not been established, the case of the prosecution fallsto ground.He finally submitted that though photograph of the deceased issaid to have been recovered and sent through the learned Magistratealong with MO-7 skull for conducting superimposition test by theScientific Assistant, such photograph has not been received by theInvestigating Agency in the manner known to law. If such photographwas already available, it is not made clear, from whom it has beenrecovered and for such recovery, there is no mahazar and witness tospeak about; in such circumstances, the superimposition test, notbeing conclusive proof, becomes invalid and the case of theprosecution is not substantiated. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits thatthe deceased is none else than the wife of the accused. The accusedwas last seen alive in the company of the deceased in their ownresidence. In the evening prior to the fateful night, PWs-4 to 6 haveseen them together inside the residence/hut and on the next day, itis the evidence of those witnesses that the deceased was foundmissing and such information has been divulged only by the accused.The circumstance that the deceased was last seen alive in thecompany of the deceased assumes importance and the same has beenclearly spoken to by PWs-4 to 6. After surrender, it is the accused,who has taken the V.A.O./PW-1 and the Inspector of Police/PW17 to thescene of occurrence and identified the place where the dead body wasburied by him. Further, the identity of the deceased has been wellestablished through PWs-7 to 9, who are none else than the father andbrothers of the deceased. On a perusal of their evidence, it is clearthat the face of the deceased was intact and they could identify thatthe dead body was that of deceased Jayanthi. PW-10 Tahsildar also, inhis cross examination, has stated that the face of the corpse wasvisible. To rule out possibility of doubt as to the identity of thedeceased, the expert was examined and the Scientific Evidence gives alending support. After conducting super imposition test with theskull and the photograph, the identity of the deceased has beenestablished beyond reasonable doubts. According to him, the case ofthe prosecution which has been established beyond reasonable doubtsby reason of clear evidence and strong circumstances cannot be thrownout on flimsy and trivial grounds. He referred to the decision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in 2007 3 SCC 1 (Ram Singh v. Sonia), dealing with theprocedure to be followed by courts in the case of circumstantialevidence.8. We have perused the materials available on record andcarefully considered the rival contentions advanced on either side.9. The question is, whether the prosecution has proved its casebeyond all reasonable doubts. 10. PW-12 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body ofthe deceased and issued Ex.P6 Post Mortem Certificate, wherein henoticed abrasion and ecchymosis on right cheek and also found softtissues and neck muscles contused and fracture with contusion in thehorns of hyoid bone. He has opined that the deceased died ofasphyxia due to strangulation and reiterated his opinion before courtwhile tendering evidence. Thus, the medical evidence would amplyprove that the deceased died of homicidal violence.11. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and this is acase of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in a casebased on circumstantial evidence, before the Court can recordconviction, it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which aninference of guilt could be drawn have been established byunimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all thecircumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature butalso complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only towardsthe guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation whichis not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 12. It is on the basis of these principles that we shall proceedto examine the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecutionin this case.13. The relevant circumstances are as follows:-(I) The deceased was last seen alive in the companyof the accused by PWs-4 to 6 in the evening prior to thefateful night. (II) The accused came voluntarily to PW-1/VAO andgave a statement under Ex.P1 narrating the sequence ofevents and admitting the offence committed by him.(III) The accused took the Investigating Officer tothe place where he buried the deceased and exhumation ofthe dead body from the said place.(IV) Identification of the body as that of thedeceased by PWs-7 to 9 and positive conclusion of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scientific assistant who conducted the superimpositiontest.14. In the light of the arguments advanced on either side, let usproceed to consider as to whether the prosecution has succeeded inestablishing the above circumstances.15. Circumstance No.I:- The deceased is none else than the wifeof the accused. They were living together along with their tenderchild at their residence which is a hut nearer to the residence ofPWs-4 to 6, who are independent witnesses and neighbours. They donot have any axe to grind against the accused. It is their positiveevidence that both of them were staying inside the house during thenight of the relevant day. In the morning, they came to know aboutthe missing of the deceased only on the intimation of the accused.After searching for the deceased at various places, PW-4 and herhusband accompanied the accused along with his child to the house ofPW-7, father of the deceased. It is also the evidence of theprosecution witnesses that the marriage between the accused and thedeceased took place three years ago and there were frequent quarrelsbetween them. The uniform evidence of PWs-4 to 6, who were notsubjected to cross-examination by the defence, is quite natural andwe do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve their testimonies.Their evidence well established the 'last seen alive theory' beyondany iota of doubt. Further, the time-gap between the point of timewhen the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when thedeceased was found dead is not so wide so as to suggest possibilityof any person other than the accused being the author/perpetrator ofthe crime.16. Circumstance No.II:- PW-1, the Village Administrative Officerhas deposed that, on 03.05.2000 at 9 am., the accused came to him andmade a statement under Ex.P1 that he caused the death of his wife bygiving a fierce blow on the cheek and tied a rope around her neck andthereafter buried her alongside the channel near his house. Oneimportant aspect to be noted in this regard is that the injury foundon the dead body during the course of autopsy as well as the ropefound around the neck of the deceased corroborates the statement madeby the accused before PW-1 and weakens the rigour of argumentadvanced in that regard by the learned counsel for theappellant/accused. The accused specifically stated that he avoideddivulging the fact out of fear that the police may beat him and thatis why he came to PW-1 to inform as to what happened, whereupon, hewas taken to the police station. Though there is some proceduralirregularity in recording Ex.P1, simply on that ground, the case ofthe prosecution cannot be discarded as a whole. It is very clear fromthe evidence that the deceased came to PW-1 and voluntarily made astatement as to what he had committed and thereupon only, exhumation,identification, post-mortem etc. followed. The evidence of PW-1 theVillage Administrative Officer was strictly corroborated by PWs-2 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and they have also accompanied PW-1 and attested the Report givenby PW-1. It follows that the second circumstance is well establishedby the prosecution.17. Circumstance No.III:- After surrender, the accused gave astatement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the InvestigatingOfficer, subsequent to which, he took the police team to the placewhere he buried the body of the deceased. PW-1 and PW-10 have nogrudge or animosity against the accused to depose falsely againsthim. It is the accused, who pointed out the place of concealment ofthe body and such conduct of the accused is of vital importance incases of this nature. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, PWs-1 and 10 to the effect that the accused had taken them to the spotand pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is anadmissible piece of evidence under Section 8 of the Act as to theconduct of the accused. In this regard, the observation made by theSupreme Court in the case law reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1938(A.N.Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka) is quite appropriate and therelevant portion is extracted below:-" 9. By virtue of Section 8 of the EvidenceAt, the conduct of the accused person is relevant,if such conduct influences or is influenced by anyfact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence ofthe circumstance, simpliciter, that the accusedpointed out to the police officer, the place,where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was foundand on their pointing out the body was exhumed,would be admissible as conduct under Section 8irrespective of the fact whether the statementmade by the accused contemporaneously with orantecedent to such conduct falls within thepurview of Section 27 or not as held by this courtin Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn) (1979 (3)SCC 90). Even if we hold that the disclosurestatement made by the accused-appellant (Exts.P-15and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act, still it is relevant underSection 8. The evidence of the investigatingofficer and Pws1, 2, 7 and PW4 the spot mahazarwitness that the accused had taken them to thespot and pointed out the place where the dead bodywas buried, is an admissible piece of evidenceunder Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. ..."In another decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.Suresh (2000 SCC (Cri) 263), it has been held thus:-" Three possibilities are there when an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused points out the place where a dead body oran incriminating material was concealed withoutstating that it was concealed by him. One is thathe himself would have concealed it. Second isthat he would have seen somebody else concealingit. And the third is that he would have been toldby another person that it was concealed there.But if the accused declines to tell the criminalcourt that his knowledge about the concealment wason account of one of the last two possibilities,the criminal court can presume that it wasconcealed by the accused himself. This is becausethe accused is the only person who can offer theexplanation as to how else he came to know of suchconcealment and if he chooses to refrain fromtelling the court as to how else he came to knowof it, the presumption is a well-justified courseto be adopted by the criminal court that theconcealment was made by him. Such aninterpretation is not inconsistent with theprinciple embodied in Section 27 of the EvidenceAct. "In the case on hand, even while the questioning under section 313Cr.P.C., though the accused stated that he did not identify thecorpse, he had not made specific denial that it was he, who took thepolice party and others to the place where he buried the deceased.In the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court and theevidence available that it was the accused, who identified andpointed out the place of concealment of the corpse, we are of theconsidered view that the prosecution clearly established circumstanceNo.III as well.18. Circumstance No.IV:- The identity of the deceased has beenestablished by the prosecution through PWs-7 to 9 and in order torule out the possibility of any doubt on that aspect, the skull wassent for superimposition test. Further, PW-10 Tahsildar, in thecourse of cross examination, rather in emphatic terms has stated thatthe face of the deceased was visible, corroborating as to what wasdeposed by PWs-7 to 9. Though serious arguments have been advancedregarding the procedure adopted in recovery of the photograph of thedeceased and based on that identity of the deceased has beendisputed, such aspect has not been put to PWs-7 to 9 and otherindependent witnesses, who are none else than the father and brothersof the deceased, in the course of cross-examination and otherindependent witnesses. Moreover, the jewels and dress materialsrecovered from the dead body were not disputed by the defence as notthat of the deceased. Further, when the factum of the accused havingcaused the death of the deceased and pointing out the place where heconcealed the body have been established beyond any scope for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ambiguity, the attack made by the learned counsel for the petitionerin respect of this circumstance would lose its vigour. Though thelearned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued thatsuperimposition test is not a conclusive proof, we are unable toappreciate such argument. In fact, way back in 1963, the SupremeCourt elaborately considered such aspect in Ram Lochan v. State ofWest Bengal (AIR 1963 SC 1074) and it will be more fitting, if wequote the relevant portion from the said Judgment," 9. ... The question at issue in the case is theidentity of the skeleton. That identity could beestablished by its physical or visual examination withreference to any peculiar features in it which wouldmark it out as belonging to the person whose bones orskeleton it is stated to be. Similarly the size ofthe bones, their angularity or curvature, theprominences or the recessions would be features whichon examination and comparison might serve to establishthe "identity of a thing" within the meaning of S.9What we have in the present case is first a photographof that skull. That the skull would be admissible inevidence for establishing the identity of the deceasedwas not disputed and similarly a photograph of thatskull. That a photograph of the deceased wasadmissible in evidence to prove his facial features,where these are facts in issue or relevant fact isalso beyond controversy. Now what P.W.18 with theassistance of P.W.19 has done is to combine these two.The outlines of the skull which is seen in thesuperimposed photograph show the nasion prominences,the width of the jaw bones and their shape, thegeneral contours of the cheek bones, the position ofthe eye cavity and the comparison of these with thecontour etc. of the face of the deceased as seen inthe photograph serve to prove that features found inthe skull and the features in the bones of the face ofthe deceased are identical or at least not dissimilar.It appears to us that such evidence would clearly bewithin S.9 of the Evidence Act.10. The learned Counsel for the appellant urgedthat the superimposed photograph was not a photographof any thing in existence and was for that reason notadmissible in evidence. This argument proceeds on afallacy. In the first place, a superimposedphotograph is not any trick photograph seeking to makesomething appear different from what it is in reality.There is no distortion of truth involved in it orattempted by it. A superimposed photograph is really https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ two photographs merged into one or rather onephotograph seen beneath the other. Both thephotographs are of existing things and they aresuperimposed or brought into the same plane enlargedto the same size for the purpose of comparison.Possibly some illustrations might make this pointclear. For instance, if the photo of the deceasedwhen alive were printed on a transparent medium andthat there were placed above a photograph of the skull– both being of the same size – the visual pictureseen of the two together would approximate to thedocument objected as inadmissible. In the above, itwould be seen both the photographs would be admissiblein evidence and no objection could be taken to theirbeing examined together. Again for instance, ifinstead of two – dimensional photograph we had first ahollow model of the head of the deceased say oftransparent or semi-transparent material – constructedor made from a photograph, that certainly would beadmissible in evidence provided there was proof thatthe model was exactly and accurately made. If themodel were dismantled into segments and placed uponthe skull with a view to show that the curves andangles, the prominence or depression etc., exactlycorresponded there could be no dispute that it wouldbe a perfect method of establishing identity. If thiswere granted the superimposed photograph which ismerely a substitute for the experiment with the modelwhich we have just now described would be equallyadmissible as evidence to establish the identity of athing. It was pointed out that this was the firstoccasion that in India an identity of skeleton wassought to be established by means of superimposedphotographs and that P.W.18 had done this experimentby reference to what he had read in the books on thesubject and that on the ground the evidence could notbe accepted. Any deficiency in scientific accuracymight go to the weight of evidence which in the caseon hand was a a matter for the jury to consider but weare now only on a very narrow question as to whetherit is excluded from evidence as inadmissible. Ouranswer is that it was admissible in evidence. "The superimposition test withstood all comments and in the light ofscientific advancement, it has received the approval as a valid pieceof positive evidence throughout the world. We find no force in theargument of the counsel for the appellant and hold that circumstanceNo.4 has also been established by the prosecution. 19. Thus, we find that the prosecution has relied on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances viz., the deceased was last seen alive in the companyof the accused; the accused voluntarily came forward to inform PW-1of the offence committed by him; it was the accused who showed theplace where the body was concealed; the evidence of PWs-7 to 9 andthe Superimposition Test established that the skull found was that ofthe deceased; and the same serve as formidable incriminatingcircumstances against the appellant/accused.We are of theconsidered view that these established circumstances lead to the oneand only irresistible conclusion that it was only the accused, whocaused the death of the deceased and subsequently buried the body inorder to screen the offence committed by him.20. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that onlydue to provocation, the accused had assaulted deceased with onesingle blow, resulting in her death; in such circumstances, a lessersentence may be imposed. We are unable to appreciate such submissionwith reference to the materials available on the side of theprosecution. It is the accused, who gave a violent blow on the cheekof the deceased and following that, strangled her with a rope and themedical opinion is that the death was only due to strangulation.Thereafter, in order to screen the crime, he carried the dead body toa nearby brook and buried it near the sand quarry. Therefore, we areof the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed bythe trial court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. on the appellant donot call for interference. 21. Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.JI.To1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO.5.2. DO THRO THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVALLUR.3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON VELLORE. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE.5. THE DISTRICT GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI - 4.6. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R.K. PET POLICE STATION, THIRUTHANI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.7. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.+ 1 CC to Mr. T.N.S. Prabhaakarren Advocate SR NO.12042Pre Delivery Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.417/06.KSK(CO)JJM(28/03/08)