P.D. Dinakaran, J. - (1.)THE above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.3.2007 in S.C.No.78 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, convicting and sentencing the appellant herein, to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 201 I.P.C.
(2.)THE charge against the appellant is that he, with an intention to commit the murder of his second wife Manimegalai, suspecting her fidelity, and his child Ezhilarasi, a five months old baby, on 11.9.2002 at 6.00 p.m. took both of them to tapioca field situated near Azhangal channel and assaulted Manimegalai with stick on her head, face, right leg and stomach and also stamped Ezhilarasi and caused their death and further, the accused, in order to cause disappearance of evidence of an offence of committing murder, buried the dead bodies in the tapioca field, which are punishable under Sections 302 (2 counts) and 201 I.P.C.
When the appellant was initially questioned, he denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exhibits P1 to P32 as well as M.Os.1 to 8.

(3.)THE case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows.
2. THE deceased Manimegalai is the second wife of the accused. THEir daughter is deceased Ezhilarasi, five months old baby. P.W.1 Dhasarathan is the elder brother of the deceased and younger brother of P.W.2 Moorthy. P.W.3 Dhanasundari is the neighbour of the accused, who turned hostile. P.W.4 Sankar, who is the cousin of the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2, also turned hostile.

3. P.Ws.1 and 2 and their family, the accused and the deceased were living in Pillur. THE deceased belonged to dhobi community. As the deceased married the accused, who belongs to some other community, P.Ws.1 and 2 and their family shifted to Marangiyur village.

4. Nearly five years prior to the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 shifted to Marangiyur. Since the accused failed to maintain the deceased, she lodged a complaint before P.W.12, Pawlin, Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Villupuram on 8.8.2002. P.W.12 enquired the accused and the accused promised that he would maintain his wife. THE result of the enquiry is marked as Ex.P18.

5. P.W.5 Chandraleka, residing in Pillur village, deposed that both the deceased and the accused are known to her and she saw the deceased during festival time gave Rs.50/-, which was given by the accused to her, asking her to hand over the same to the deceased. THE deceased refused to receive the same as it is not sufficient for her.
During September 2002, P.W.4 asked P.W.1 as to whether the deceased returned home and informed him that he saw the accused in the company of the deceased on 11.9.2002 at 5.00 p.m. and the accused told her to come to tapioca field and he would give Rs.50/- and on the next day, the accused alone returned and the deceased and the child did not return. Hence, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with his sister Lakshmi and her husband Anandan came to P.W.6 Arumaikannu, Panchayat President, Pillur and informed about the missing of the deceased.
P.W.6 enquired the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased. THE accused replied that he sent the deceased to the temple and he would bring her. But, the accused absconded from the village. P.W.6 also directed the parents of the accused to bring the deceased. THEy also promised to bring her, but they failed to do so. Hence, a suspicion was created on the accused. THEreafter, P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to give police complaint. Accordingly, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint, before the Inspector of Police, Villupuram.
On 7.11.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.10 Madasamy, Inspector of Police, Villupuram, based on Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.963 of 2002 for 'woman missing' and prepared Ex.P13 First Information Report. He took up the case for investigation, preceded to the scene of crime and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P14 Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.8 Allimuthu, Village Administrative Officer, Pillur, and Office Menial Sivaji. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Since he had been transferred to another place, P.W.16 Hari, Inspector of Police continued the investigation.
P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer deposed that when he was in his office on 26.11.2002, the accused came there and gave Ex.P3 extra judicial confession stating that he murdered his wife. P.W.8 recorded his statement and prepared Ex.P4 Special Report. THEreafter, he produced the accused before P.W.16 along with Exs.P3 and P4. P.W.16, on the same day at 6.00 p.m., altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P20 altered FIR. P.W.14 Ramesh, Head Constable delivered altered FIR to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram. THEreafter, P.W.16 arrested the accused and enquired him. THE accused gave a confession statement voluntarily. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the confession statement. Pursuant to the confession, the accused took the police and P.W.8 to the place of occurrence, where he buried the dead bodies. P.W.16 inspected the place and prepared Ex.P6 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P23 Rough Sketch. He also recovered M.O.5 tin sheet under Ex.P7 Mahazar. THEreafter, P.W.16 recovered M.O.6 stick from the house of the accused under Ex.P8 Mahazar.
On receipt of requisition from P.W.16 for exhumation of the dead bodies, P.W.9 Natarajan, Tahsildar, Villupuram proceeded to Anangoor on 30.11.2002. P.W.15 Dr. Murugesan, attached to Chengleput Medical College, on receipt of Exs.P9 and P10 requisition for conducting autopsy over the dead bodies, proceeded to the place where the dead bodies were exhumed. THE accused identified the place where the dead bodies were buried and the said place is situated in R.S.No.683. On 30.11.2002, in the presence of police officials and medical officers, the skeleton alone was exhumed. P.W.9 conducted inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Exs.P11 and P12 inquest reports. P.W.13, is the Police Head Constable, who identified the dead bodies to the Medical Officers.
P.W.15 conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Manimegalai and noticed the following features: Highly decomposed body of a female, foul smelling odour were emanating from the body. THE body was covered with blue coloured synthetic silk saree, grey coloured blouse and purple with violet coloured petticoat. Moorthy and Dasarathan, who were brothers of the deceased Manimegalai, identified the body. Hairs from the scalp, eyebrows and pubic hairs were loosened and fallen away. THE scalp hairs were black in colour, 35 cm in length the soft tissues were highly decomposed and found attached to the bones and emanating foul smelling odour. THE height of the body was 140 cm, breadth was 30 cm with following ante-mortem injuries: 1) 10x4x1cm bruising seen in the left side frontal, parietal and occipital area of the scalp. 2) 5x3x1cm contusion on the left side cheek. Multiple comminuted fracture on the left side zygomatic bone. 3) Comminuted fracture on the right zygomatic bone. 4) 9 cm oblique fissured fracture on the left side temporal parietal bone. 5) 6cm oblique fissured fracture on the right side middle cranial fossa of the base of the skull bone. THE doctor was of the opinion that the deceased Manimegalai would appear to have died of head injuries and issued Ex.P21 post-mortem certificate.
THEreafter, P.W.15 conducted autopsy over the dead body of child Ezhilarasi and found the following features: "One advanced decomposed body of a female child, the body was worn by orange coloured jatti, and red coloured waist thread and orange coloured plastic bangles two in number. Moorthy and Dasarathan, brothers of the deceased Manimegalai, identified the body and clothes, the height of the body was 62 cm in length. Hairs from the scalp were loosened and fallen away. Soft tissues of the body, face, nose and limbs were decomposed and expose emanating foul smelling odour. THE bones of the body, skull, humerus bones, radius, ulna, rib bones, femur bones, tibia and vertebral were recovered. Decomposed soft tissues were attached to the bones. All the internal organs were highly decomposed beyond their recognition. Nil fractures seen on the bones. All the neck structure of the body were on advanced decomposition beyond their recognition." THE Doctor opined that no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given in view of negative report of chemical examiners and due to advanced decomposing changes and issued Ex.P22 post-mortem certificate.
P.W.13 recovered M.Os.1 to 4, 7 and 8 from the dead bodies and handed over the same with Ex.P19 Special Report to P.W.16. P.W.16 sent the material objects to the Court for subjecting the same for chemical examination through Exs.P24 and P28 requisitions. THE Judicial Magistrate forwarded the material objects to the laboratory under Exs.P25 and P29 covering letters and received Exs.P26 and 30 Chemical Examiner's Reports and Ex.P27 Serologist's Report.
P.W.16 gave Ex.P31 requisition to record a statement under Section 167(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the Judicial Magistrate examined the accused, he said that he was not willing to give statement. Ex.P32 is the report of the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.16 gave Ex.P15 requisition to send the skull bone for conducting superimposition examination and the same was sent to the Forensic Department under Ex.P16 covering letter.
P.W.11 Alamelumankai, Biology Assistant, Forensic Science Department, conducted superimposition test and issued Ex.P17 report opining that the skull could possibly have belonged to the female individual seen in the photograph.
P.W.16, Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and after following all the legal formalities, filed the final report in the court against the accused under Section 302 (2 counts) and 201 IPC on 17.11.2003.
When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was brought forth by the accused before the court.