IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN. WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1302 of 2005(B) ------------------------- SC.807/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- CHANDRAN, CONVICT NO.1531, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. ADV.C.K.SAJEEV(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & P. S. Gopinathan, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A. No. 1302 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009. Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant who has been found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his young wife, is before us in this appeal. The court below has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. Appellant married Sheela, the deceased, in 1988. Two children, aged 15 and 12 years respectively, were born in the said wedlock. It came out in evidence that the love marriage very soon turned out to be a nightmarish affair for the unfortunate young woman. All the witnesses on the side of the prosecution, who are none other than relatives, neighbours and friends of the appellant and the deceased, stated before the Court that the appellant used to harass the deceased physically and mentally suspecting her chastity. It also came out on record that the deceased woman had left her matrimonial home with the two children and started to live with her parents since 8 months prior to the tragic incident. 3. On April 30, 2002 at about 9.30 AM deceased Sheela went to the neighbouring property of Pw.3 to wash her clothes along with Pw.1, her sister. While Pw.1 and Sheela were washing Crl.A.1302/2005. 2 their clothes standing near the well, appellant went there and called Sheela near to him. When Sheela went towards the appellant, he asked her to agree for a divorce which she declined. Some altercation followed. Hearing the noise, the mother of deceased Sheela called out from her house and asked her not to talk to the appellant. A that time the appellant took out a kitchen knife from his waist line and stabbed Sheela on her abdomen. She fell down. Pw.1 tried to run towards her sister. The appellant brandished the knife towards her and threatened her not to go near him. The appellant stabbed at the body of Sheela repeatedly. Pw.2, another neighbour and relative of Pw.1 and the deceased, who had also come there to wash her clothes and was standing near Pw.1 also saw the incident. Both Pw.1 and 2 cried aloud. At that time Pw.4 Manoj (Cw.8) and some others came running to the scene. The accused ran away from the place with the knife in his hand. Pw.4 Manoj and others took Sheela to the Government Hospital at Perambra where she was declared dead. Pw.1 went to Perambra Police Station and gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement. Investigation followed. Appellant was arrested and M.O.1 knife was recovered on the basis of the information furnished by him. Charge sheet was laid thereafter against the appellant. 4. Prosecution examined Pws.1 to 17 and Exts.P1 to P19 Crl.A.1302/2005. 3 and M.O.1 to M.O.9 were marked on its side. Ext.D1 contradiction was marked on the side of the defence. 5. Pw.1, the sister of deceased Sheela deposed before the court that she had gone along with her sister near the well situated in the property of Pw.3 which is in their neighbourhood, to wash clothes. The appellant who is also living in the neighbourhood came there and called Sheela towards him. Appellant asked Sheela to put an end to their marital relationship. Words were exchanged between them. Hearing the noise their mother called out Sheela from her residence and asked her what was happening. Sheela tried to walk away from the appellant. At that time appellant took out M.O.1 kitchen knife from his waistline and stabbed at the abdomen of Sheela. She fell down. When Pw.1 tried to run towards Sheela, the appellant brandished the knife at her and told her not to go near him. Appellant thereafter went on a stabbing spree at the body of Sheela who was lying down on the ground. Pw.1 and Bindu (Pw.2) who had also come to the well for washing their clothes cried aloud. Pw.4, CW.8 and some others came to the scene. Sheela was taken to the hospital at Perambra where she was declared dead. 6. Pw.1 deposed before the court that her sister's marital life was totally unpleasant since the appellant used to harass her Crl.A.1302/2005. 4 suspecting her chastity. Sheela was often abused physically and mentally. Because of this harassment Sheela had come to the parental home with her two children, and their father had asked the appellant not to come to their house any more.Pw.1 asserted that she had seen the appellant and Sheela talking to each other. She identified M.O.1 kitchen knife which was used by the appellant to inflict the injuries on Sheela. She deposed that the First Information Statement was recorded by Pw.14. She admitted her signature in Ext.P1. 7. Pw.2 who was the other ocular witness corroborated the oral testimony of Pw.1. She also stated that the appellant used to harass the deceased all the time suspecting her chastity. She also spoke about the physical assault made by the appellant on Sheela on earlier occasions. 8. Pw.3, the owner of the property where the incident took place was a witness to Ext.P2 scene mahazar also. He was also a witness to Ext.P6 scene mahazar under which M.O.2 series chappals and M.O.3 bloodstained soil were recovered. 9. Pw.4 had taken deceased Sheela to the hospital along with Cw.5 in the jeep of Pw.8. Pw.4 was a witness to Ext.P3 inquest report also. The dress worn by deceased Sheela (M.O.4 to M.O.6) was seized at the time of inquest. Pw.5 who was a co-worker of Crl.A.1302/2005. 5 the appellant also spoke about the unhappy marital relationship of the appellant and deceased Sheela. This witness further stated that about one month prior to the incident the appellant had asked him as to what would be the maximum sentence in a case of a murder. He was also present at the time of inquest. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the evidence of other witnesses examined in the case at length. 10. Pw.10 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ext.P8 post mortem certificate. In this certificate the doctor noted 23 ante mortem injuries on the body of the victim. He stated that 9 out of those 23 injuries (injury Nos.4, 5,7, 8 and 10 to 14) by themselves independently and in combination, would have been sufficient to cause death. The injuries noted by the doctor are so ghastly and brutal that we do not propose to refer to them in detail, not only for the reason that they would disturb the sensibility of any human being but also for the simple reason that that will unnecessarily burden this judgment. Suffice it to say that the heinous manner in which the appellant went about with his dastardly act is sufficient to indicate that he deserved a much severe punishment. He went on a stabbing spree after the unfortunate woman fell down on the ground. Injury No.4 noted by Pw.10 reveals that it fell on her Crl.A.1302/2005. 6 chest. The wound track penetrated the right chest cavity cutting the third rib and through the second and third intercostal space (3.5 cm. x 1 cm.) transfixed to the upper and lower lobes of lung for a depth of 6 cms. and pierced the back of right side of chest, cutting the 6th rib and adjacent intercostal space and made its exit on the back of chest at a point 4 cm. to the right of midline and 15 cm. below shoulder. The other injuries, especially the 9 out of 10, are also equally savage and brutal, to say the least. 11. The defence which was attempted to be taken by the appellant appears to be one of alibi; but the evidence on record gave no room for any doubt about the complexity of the appellant. As has been noticed already, the incident took place in broad day light at about 9.30 AM, in the presence of Pws.1 and 2 , leave alone the other neighbouring witnesses who were not examined before the court for obvious reasons. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and that of Pws.4 and 6 unambiguously established the case of the prosecution. M.O.1 knife was recovered on the basis of the information furnished by the accused himself. Ext.P5 mahazar prepared in this connection was also proved in the case. Ext.P19 report of the Chemical Examiner clearly established that there was blood on the weapon of the crime. In short, all the material pieces of evidence clinchingly proved that it was the appellant and Crl.A.1302/2005. 7 appellant alone who had committed this heinous crime. 12. Having very carefully perused the entire materials on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the court below was justified in finding the appellant guilty. There is absolutely no room for any doubt with regard to the involvement of the appellant. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge P. S. Gopinathan Judge an.