Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, in S.C.No.426 of 2003 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Amudha. She was given in marriage to the accused 1 = years prior to the occurrence. There was frequent quarrel between the spouses since he suspected her fidelity. She was pregnant, and hence she was brought to the parental home. During the relevant time, she was staying with P.Ws.1 and 2 in their house. On 27.9.2002, the accused came to P.W.1's house and also staying over there. On 28.9.2002 at about 11.00 A.M., both P.Ws.1 and 2 were sitting outside, while the accused and the deceased were inside. They heard the sound of quarrel. When they got inside, they found the accused actually attacking his wife with M.O.1 knife, on her neck. He immediately fled away from the place of occurrence, and she died instantaneously. (b) P.W.1 proceeded to J1 Saidapet Police Station, the respondent herein, and gave a complaint at 12.15 P.M., which is marked as Ex.P1, and P.W.7, the Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint, received by him, registered a case in Crime No.2124 of 2002 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P11 was sent to the Court along with Ex.P1. Then, he took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P12. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Amudha in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P13. Then, he recovered the material objects including the bloodstained earth and sample earth, from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P7, for the purpose of postmortem. (c) On receipt of the said requisition, P.W.6, the Tutor/Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, G.R.H., Chennai, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Admudha and has given his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to cut throat injury. He has issued a postmortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P8. (d) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 29.9.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. when he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses, and the admissible part is marked as Ex.P4, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1 knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. The material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and M.O.1, knife, were subjected to chemical analysis. The serology report, Ex.P10, was produced before the Court. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charge was framed. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 10 material objects in order to prove its case. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The lower Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded the punishment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased; that before accepting their evidence, it should have been scrutinized carefully; that from their evidence, it would be quite clear that they could not have been in the place of occurrence at all; that the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, inside the house of P.W.2; that P.Ws.1 and 2 would claim that they were actually sitting outside; that both of them have given statements to the effect that when they saw, there was a quarrel between the spouses, and when they got inside, they saw the accused actually cutting her neck with the knife; but, it is contrary to the postmortem certificate and the evidence adduced by the Doctor; that the postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, if perused, would clearly indicate that there are number of injuries; that had it been true that P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the occurrence, they would have accounted for the injuries, but not done so; that both of them have deposed that they found him cutting only on the neck, and hence, it would be quite indicative of the fact that they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that both the witnesses are interested since they are closely related to the deceased; that apart from that, he suspected her fidelity; that the quarrel arose between the spouses in the past also, and hence, they came forward to give false evidence. 5.The learned Counsel would further add that the arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.1 knife, from the accused were nothing but cooked up affairs; that the documents were actually created in order to strengthen the prosecution case, but in vain; and that under the circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal since the lower Court has taken an erroneous view. 6.The learned Counsel in the second line of argument would add that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has got to be accepted for the fact that it was the accused who caused the death of his wife, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder; that even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they have witnessed the quarrel between the spouses inside the house as a result of which the occurrence has taken place; that under the circumstances, there was a sudden quarrel which resulted in the occurrence; that the accused was staying more than a day in the same house; that it cannot be stated that it was premeditated or intentional, but only due to the sudden quarrel between the spouses, and hence the act of the accused would fall under the exceptions to Sec.300 of IPC, and it has got to be considered by the Court. 7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the same.
8.It is not in controversy that one Amudha the daughter of P.W.2, was done to death in an incident that had taken place on 28.9.2002 in the house of P.W.2. Following the inquest made by the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.6, the Doctor, who has issued a postmortem certificate under Ex.P8. He was also examined as a witness, and he has also categorically deposed that she died out of shock due to cut throat injury. The postmortem certificate was also placed before the trial Court to that effect. The fact that she died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court, and hence factually it could be recorded so. 9.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who stabbed her to death, the prosecution examined two witnesses who are P.Ws.1 and 2. True it is, P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.2 is the mother. It is settled principle of law that merely because of the relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. But, before accepting the evidence, the Court must apply the test of careful scrutiny and satisfy itself. In the instant case, even if the test is applied, the Court is satisfied that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has got to be accepted. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed in one voice that they were actually in the house on the day at about 11.00 A.M. They have further stated that the accused came to the house and stayed even on the previous night with his wife, and on 28.9.2002, when they were sitting outside, they heard the noise of quarrel between the spouses which was actually inside the house, and then they immediately got inside when they witnessed the occurrence, and at that time, he was actually cutting her neck. Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there are number of injuries found in the postmortem certificate; but, the witnesses have spoken to the fact that there was only one injury, and he was cutting her neck, and hence they could not have seen the occurrence at all cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that they found the accused cutting her neck. Both of them have further added that he has actually threatened them. Under the circumstances, there are no occasions for them to see the continuing part of the occurrence. It would be quite clear that they have witnessed the occurrence since their testimony stood the test despite full cross-examination. Further, the postmortem Doctor's opinion has been canvassed. The postmortem certificate has also been marked where from it is clear that she died of shock due to cut throat injury. 10.Yet another circumstance in favour of the prosecution was the recovery of M.O.1 knife, from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement given by him on arrest. The said weapon of crime along with the other material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, and the clothes recovered from the dead body, were subjected to analysis, and they are found to have contained human blood. A witness has been examined with regard to the recovery of M.O.1, and his evidence remained in tact despite cross-examination in full. 11.Further, in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at about 11.30 A.M., and the report was given within a short span of time. The case was registered at 12.15 P.M. within a short span of 45 minutes. The FIR has reached the Judicial Magistrate at 4.00 P.M. on the very day. The investigation was commenced at 1.00 P.M., and the major part of the investigation was over that evening. All would speak of the truth of the prosecution case that was placed before the trial Court. In view of the evidence available, the contention put forth by the appellant's Counsel do not carry merit, and they are liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. 12.Insofar as the second line of argument, this Court is able to see force in the same. Even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, there was frequent quarrel between the spouses in the past since the accused suspected her fidelity, and he came to the house and also stayed with his wife even on 27.9.2002, the previous day, and the occurrence has taken place the next day. On that day, when both P.Ws.1 and 2 were sitting outside, the quarrel has taken place inside the house as a result of which, he stabbed her. Under the circumstances, it would be quite indicative of the fact that since he has stayed throughout the night and on the next day morning also, it is not his intention to murder his wife. Under the circumstances, no premeditation could be noticed; but, it was due to sudden quarrel. Hence the act of the accused cannot be termed as murder, but it would fall under the exception to Sec.300 of IPC. This Court is of the view that the act of the accused would attract the provisions of Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC, and awarding 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. 13.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC for which he is directed to suffer 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off. The fine and the default sentence imposed by the trial Court will hold good. 14.In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
