IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.04.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Criminal Appeal.No.581 of 2007 C.Kannan ... Appellant/Accused vs. State, by The Inspector of Police, C-9 Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai. (Cr.No.715/2004). ... Respondent/Complainant Appeal against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 24.4.2007 made in S.C.No.282 of 2006. For Appellant : Mr.T.Shanmuga Boopathi For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) For having committed an offence of uxoricide, the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence by judgment dated 24.4.2007 in Sessions Case No.282 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been brought forth by the appellant. 2. The charge levelled against the appellant is that on the mid night of 3.10.2004, due to desparation on account of not having any issues out of his wedlock with Jothi, the deceased, and getting annoyed at her for not permitting him to remarry another girl, with intention and knowledge, pursuant to a quarrel on the issues, stabbed on her neck with a knife, resulting in her death and thereby, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ committed an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. On the above charge, the appellant was questioned, but he denied his complicity in the commission of offence and hence, the case was taken up for trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution marched 13 witnesses and relied upon 15 exhibits and 12 material objects. On the defence side, no witness was examined nor any document was marked. The learned trial Judge, on scrutiny of the materials placed on record and on hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, spanked the impugned judgment against the appellant. 4.Background facts in nutshell are as follows:- (a) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Jothi. The deceased was given in marriage to the accused about 15 years prior to the occurrence and they had no issues out of their wedlock. At the time of occurrence, the deceased, the accused and P.W.1 were living together in a thatched house at Chinnandikuppam. The accused used to pick up quarrels with the deceased embarking on the issue of sterility. Once, the accused arranged for his second marriage with another girl, but that was cancelled on account of intervention by the deceased. Thereafter, they adopted a girl child, but that too went in vain, since the child died after few months. On account of desparation due to this, the accused was quarrelling with the deceased frequently. On 3.10.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., as soon as the accused, the deceased and P.W.1 returned to the house after attending their works, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased on the issues of no children and for re-marriage, during which he shouted at the deceased saying that he can live happily only when she is finished off. On account of the quarrel, the deceased and P.W.1 did not prepare food for dinner and P.W.1, thinking it as an usual quarrel, went out and took her bed on the pial of a nearby temple. But, the quarrel prolonged till midnight and the accused, who was on pangs of bitterness, got enraged over the deceased and suddenly, he took a knife and stabbed her. On hearing the distressing cries of the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 3 came to the scene and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot leaving the weapon. The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood and when the witnesses tried to take her to the hospital, she breathed her last. (b) P.W.1 drafted a complaint as to the occurrence with the help of P.W.4, Prathap and lodged the same with P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Neelangarai Police Station, at about 2.00 a.m. on 4.10.2004. The said complaint is Ex.P.1, based on which a case in Crime No.715 of 2004 was registered against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.12 is the printed F.I.R. P.W.12 sent the F.I.R. to Court and the copies to higher-ups. (c) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, on receipt of information over https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ phone, proceeded to the police station, obtained a copy of F.I.R. and took up investigation. He reached the spot, observed it and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.13 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another. He seized M.Os.1 to 5 from the scene of occurrence under a mahazar, Ex.P.3, attested by the same witnesses. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 5.15 a.m. and 7.15 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.14, inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body to the hospital through a police constable, with a requisition to conduct autopsy. (d) On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, P.W.11, Civil Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Royapettah Hosital, Chennai, conducted autopsy and noticed the following injuries:- "1. An oblique incised wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm. x skin deep on front of middle of neck 5 cm. below the chin on midline. 2. An oblique, oval shaped stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm. with a tailing 0.2 cm. over the lower end, and 2.5 cm. below the angle of the mandible on right side. The upper end is 7 cm. below the right mastoid process and the lower end is 3 cm. away from the midline. On dissection: The margins of the wound are clean and clear cut extensive bruising of underlying tissues with cut 2 cm. over the underlying tissues and platysma muscle. On further dissection there is a cut 2 cm. long over the right sterno-mastoid muscle 6.5 cm. below the mastoid process with extensive bruising of surrounding tissues and with severance of underlying nerves and vessels. The depth of the wound is 1.5 cm. and the direction of the wound is downwards and backwards. 3. A horizontal stab wound 3.5 x 0.5 cm. with tailing 0.3 cm. over the outer end seen 4 cm. above the right collar bone and 6.5 cm. below the mandible on right side. The inner end is 2 cm. away from the midline. On dissection: The margins of the wound are clean and clear cut. Extensive bruising of underlying tissues with cut 3 cm. over the platysma muscle. On further dissection, there is a cut 3 cm. long over the right sterno-mastoid muscle 3.5 cm. above the right collar bone, with severance of underlying vessels and nerves. On further dissection, the wound enters into the right thoracic cavity piercing to a length of 2 cm. On further dissection, the thoracic cavity contains 20 grms of clotted blood and 400 ml. of fluid blood. A cut over the apex of upper lobe of right lung is found collapsed. The depth of the wound is 7 cm. and direction of the wound is downwards and inwards." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The doctor issued Ex.P.11, post-mortem certificate, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury to right lung. (e) P.W.13, continuing with his investigation, recorded the statement of the post-mortem doctor, P.W.11, by showing M.O.1, knife. He recovered M.Os.8 to 10 under Form 95 on being produced by the police constable who was present at the time of post-mortem. He arrested the accused at about 7.20 p.m. on 4.10.2004 when he was produced by P.W.6, Village Administrative Officer and his menial and when questioned, the accused gave a confession statement and thereafter, M.Os.11 and 12, clothings of the accused were recovered under Form 95, which is marked as Ex.P.15 in the case. All the material objects were sent for chemical examination and they were found to contain human blood. Exs.P.7 and P.8 are the biology report and serology report respectively. After obtaining the post-mortem report, Ex.P.11, from the doctor, P.W.11, the investigating officer laid the charge sheet against the accused on 29.10.2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. (f) The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials and he made a bald denial of the same. He did not examine any witness nor marked any document on his side. On consideration of materials and on hearing the submissions of both sides, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused as referred to earlier. Hence, the present appeal. 5.Mr.Shanmuga Boopathi, learned counsel for the appellant/accused took us to the contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses as well as in the inquest report, Ex.P.14 and post-mortem report, Ex.P.11, with regard to the injury which proved to be fatal as well as the presence of food particles in the stomach of the deceased, contends that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal. Alternatively, he also argues for modification of conviction by giving him the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. on the ground of sustained provocation. 6.Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the above said contentions, submits that the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 about the motive and the occurrence proper coupled with the medical evidence clearly bring home the guilt of the accused and more so, the accused being the husband of the deceased and both residing under one roof, it is for him to come out with an explanation as to how his wife met her end. In the absence of any explanation and in view of the available evidence, which is overwhelming in nature, the impugned judgment is well-founded and interference, much less, bringing the offence under the exception is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not at all warranted at the hands of this Court. 7.Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record. 8.There can be no dispute that the deceased Jothi was done to death. The medical evidence through P.W.11, post-mortem doctor and Ex.P.11, post-mortem certificate, clearly shows that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the stab injury to right lung. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. 9.The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased by inflicting stab injuries ? and (ii) Whether the accused is entitled for the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. ? 10.1. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 as witnesses, of whom, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and she speaks about the motive as well as the occurrence proper. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the house owners, of whom P.W.2 saw the accused running away from the scene and P.W.3, wife of P.W.2, is a hear-say witness and she also speaks about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. P.W.7 is the previous house owner and he speaks about the quarrel. 10.2. With regard to the motive part of the occurrence, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that after the deceased was given in marriage to the accused, who is nonetheless the sister-in-law's son of P.W.1, the accused was finding fault with P.W.1 and the deceased for not giving enough jewels at the time of marriage and hence, the deceased left the matrimonial home and came to her house at Vadalur and after some time, the accused also came and stayed with them. It is her further evidence that the accused was jobless and hence, she was only taking care of the family and after pacifying the deceased and the accused, she set up a separate residence for them at Ariyur and the deceased and accused were eking their livelihood by the deceased selling some eatables in a school. According to P.W.1, the deceased again returned back to her house and stayed with her, since the accused picked up a quarrel for the late coming of the deceased to the house after her work and also beat her. P.W.1 and the deceased, thereafter, shifted the residence to Chinnandikuppam and stayed at the house of P.W.7 for rent and were working as a 'sithal' and again shifted to Ariyur to the residence of P.W.1's brother, where on coming to know about the engagement of the accused with another girl, both P.W.1 and the deceased went to the bride's residence and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persuaded the bride not to marry the accused, on account of which, the marriage was cancelled. Thereafter, the accused came and joined the deceased and they all lived at Chinnandikuppam. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the accused frequently used to engage in quarrels with the deceased harassing her for not giving birth to a child and hence, P.W.1 arranged for an adoption of a girl child. But, since that girl child also died within 4 ½ months, the accused got enraged over the deceased and frequently accused her for the barrenness and also for not permitting him for second marriage, because of which, the house-owner P.W.7 asked them to vacate the house and hence, they shifted the residence to a thatched house belonging to P.Ws.2 and 3. Even thereafter also, the accused engaged in frequent quarrels with the deceased during night. 10.3. The above evidence of P.W.1 about the frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased on account of the barrenness and on account of the death of the adopted child, stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, the previous house-owner, who has spoken on similar lines and he has further stated that on account of such quarrels, he made them to vacate his house. P.W.3, wife of P.W.2, also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the quarrel centering on the issue of sterility. From the above, we have no doubt at all that all was not well with the accused and the deceased and the accused used to engage in frequent quarrels and thus, we are convinced that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive part of the occurrence. 11.As regards the occurrence proper, according to P.W.1, on the fateful day, again the accused picked up a quarrel and thinking that it as an usual quarrel, she went to take her bed in the nearby temple and during midnight, she woke up on hearing the distressing cries of the deceased and when she went to the house, she saw the accused stabbing the deceased. She raised alarm, on hearing which, P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the scene. According to P.W.2, when he was nearing the house, he saw the accused coming out of the house and running away. Immediately, P.W.2 went into the house only to see the deceased in a pool of blood and on enquiry, he was informed by P.W.1 that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased by stabbing her. P.W.3 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 that on hearing the cries of P.W.1, she rushed to the scene along with P.W.2 and saw the deceased with bleeding injuries. When the witnesses attempted to take the deceased to the hospital, the deceased breathed her last and hence, P.W.1 proceeded to police station and lodged the complaint inculpating the accused with the crime. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7 with regard to motive and occurrence proper is categorical, cogent, natural and trustworthy and we find no reason to disbelieve their evidence. 12.The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain discrepancies that in chief P.W.1 has stated that she accompanied the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased to the house of the bride with whom the accused arranged for second marriage, whereas in cross she has stated that the deceased alone went to the house; that the post-mortem doctor, P.W.11, noticed three injuries on the dead body, but in the inquest report, Ex.P.14, only two injuries were noted. But, in view of the ocular testimony of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 7, independent witnesses who have no axe to grind against the accused, more so, when the motive part of the occurrence has also been strongly established, the above contradictions are only trivial in nature and hold no water to discredit the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we are of the confirmed opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it was the accused and none else who has caused the death of the deceased by inflicing stab injuries. 13. The only question that is to be decided is under what circumstances the accused has caused the death of the deceased and whether he is entitled to get the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. To invoke Exception 1, there must be a grave and sudden provocation and the offender, while deprived of his power of self- control, should have committed the offence. The undisputed facts are that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7. It is the categorical evidence of P.W.1 that whenever there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the deceased used to leave her matrimonial home and join her mother, P.W.1 and even much prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased deserted the accused and was living with P.W.1 and later, the accused joined the deceased. As already stated, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that even on the fateful day, a quarrel ensued between them even at 8.00 p.m. and hence, they have not cooked dinner on that day and thinking it as an usual quarrel, she went to the nearby temple to take her bed, loaded with thoughts of her daughter's fateful life. She has further stated that during midnight, on hearing the cries of her daughter, she woke up and went to the house only to see her daughter being stabbed by the accused. It is, thus, clear that the quarrel which started around 8.00 p.m. on that day continued till midnight and since it was a quarrel between husband and wife, we cannot expect any outsider, even if it is the mother, to poke his/her nose into such quarrel and hence, a presumption can easily be drawn that the deceased must have given some provocation for the accused to take a knife and inflict stab injuries on her. In other words, the quarrel being not an unusual one between them and they have been quarrelling throughout their marital life, a prudent man cannot go to such an extent of killing his wife. It is to be noted here that the deceased refused to cook dinner on that night, due to which there is every possibility for the accused to get rancor at the deceased. That apart, as per the evidence of the post-mortem doctor and Ex.P.11, post-mortem certificate, some food particles were found in the stomach of the deceased, which prompted us to come to a conclusion that before the accused could reach the house after his work, the deceased would have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken her dinner, which also would have added fuel to the fire. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have decided to give the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. But, however, in view of the words uttered by the accused at that time that only if the deceased is finished off, he could live happily by performing another marriage and also taking note of the weapon used by him for committing the crime as well as the situs of the body on which he inflicted the stab injuries, we are of the view that he had the intention to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause the death and hence, we are inclined to modify the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C., instead of holding him guilty for the offence under Section 299 I.P.C. and for the said conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. In result, (i) the conviction of the appellant/accused is modified from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.; (ii) for the said conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years; (iii)the appeal is accordingly partly allowed with the above modification. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sra To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 2. The District Collector, Chengalpattu. 3. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-9 Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.A.No.581 of 2007 RA(CO) JJM(21.05.08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/