IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 3-12-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN CRL.A.No.71 of 2008 Nallaiyan .. Appellant vs State rep. By Inspector of Police Kelambakkam Police Station Kancheepuram District (Cr.No.274 of 2005) .. Respondent Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, made in S.C.No.167 of 2006 dated 20.9.2007. For Appellant : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu, made in S.C.No.167 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty for a charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 knew both the deceased Shanthi and her husband, the accused/appellant. At the time of occurrence, P.W.1 was working as a Security in Patni Computer and the construction work was going on. The accused was working as a maistry, and his wife was working as a helper to the masons. On 26.7.2005 at about 9.00 P.M., there was a wordy quarrel between the spouses. On the next day that was on 27.7.2005, at about 7.00 A.M., there was a wordy altercation between them in the residence. Pursuant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the wordy altercation, the accused stabbed her with a knife, and when she tried to ward it off, she sustained injury on her hand and neck, and she fell down with bleeding injuries. Then the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint on the strength of which P.W.6, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty, registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2005 under Sec.307 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P7, was despatched to the Court. (b) P.W.8, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation. He received an intimation, Ex.P9, that she died in the hospital. Then, the case was altered to Sec.302 of IPC. The alteration report, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court. Then, P.W.8 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P12. He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P11. A requisition was forwarded to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem. (c) P.W.7, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shanthi and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. (d) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested at 11.00 A.M. on 28.7.2005. He also gave a confessional statement which was recorded. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis. Ex.P15 is the biological report, and Ex.P16 is the serological report. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and also relied on 17 exhibits and 9 material objects. On completion of 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, looked into the materials and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found him guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution has rested its case exclusively on the solitary testimony of P.W.1; that according to him, he was a security in a computer firm where the construction work was going on, and the deceased was working as a helper to the masons, and the accused was a maistry for masons; that he has claimed that he has actually witnessed the quarrel between both, but he has not intervened, and he has not even reported the matter to the owner though it has taken place the previous day and also the next morning; and that the evidence of P.W.1 was a development before the Court apart from the averments found in Ex.P1 report. 5.Added further the learned Counsel that the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through P.W.1, did not get corroboration from the medical opinion canvassed through P.W.7, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body; that apart from that, the arrest, confession and recovery are all nothing but a cooked up affair in order to suit the prosecution story, and hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6.Added further the learned Counsel that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the factual position that it was the accused who attacked his wife with the knife and caused her death, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder; that even according to P.W.1, the solitary witness, there was a quarrel even on the prior night and also at the time of the occurrence; that he was provoked by the works spoken by her; that due to the uncontrollable provocation, he stabbed her; that there was actually evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the sudden quarrel and provocation, and hence, this has got to be considered by this Court. 7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8.It is not in controversy that one Shanthi, the wife of the accused, was done to death by stabbing. Following the inquest made by the Investigator, P.W.9, the dead body of Shanthi was subjected to postmortem by P.W.7, the Doctor, who has given his opinion in Ex.P8, the postmortem certificate, that she died out of head injury. The fact that Shanthi died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or even before this Court. Hence no impediment is felt by the Court in recording that Shanthi died on account of homicidal violence. 9.It is true that the prosecution had got only one witness to establish the fact that it was the appellant/accused who stabbed her to death. The law of evidence does not require the quantity of evidence, but only look for quality. It is an admitted position that the prosecution had only one witness namely P.W.1, through whom the case could be projected. But, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that evidence without any impediment could be accepted in law, provided it satisfies the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, according to P.W.1, at the relevant point of time, he was a security in a computer firm where the construction work was going on, and the accused was a maistry, and the deceased was a helper for masons. This fact was not disputed by the appellant. Further, according to P.W.1, even on the prior night there was a quarrel between the spouses in the residence during which he was present, and when the accused was about to attack her, she tried to ward it off; but, she was attacked by him on different parts of the body, and then he proceeded to the police station and gave a complaint. Originally, a case under Sec.307 of IPC was registered, and on her death, it was altered to Sec.302 IPC. Despite cross-examination in full, P.W.1's evidence stood the test and inspired the confidence of the Court. Apart from this, the ocular testimony of P.W.1 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence which was placed through P.W.7, the Doctor, and also the postmortem certificate, Ex.P8. 10.Yet another circumstance which stood against the appellant/accused was the recovery of M.O.1 knife, pursuant to the confession made by him to the Investigator, and the same has been recovered in the presence of witnesses. A witness has been examined in respect of arrest, confession and also recovery. In the considered opinion of the Court, this part of the evidence was a strong piece which would be indicating the nexus of the accused with the crime. 11.All these circumstances mentioned above, would clearly indicate that it was the accused who attacked his wife with knife and caused her death in a short span of time, and hence the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the face of the evidence available and recorded above, 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 contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Even according to P.W.1 who witnessed the occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel on the prior night and also at the time of occurrence. At the time of cross- examination, he has further added that when the wordy altercation was going on, the words spoken by the wife, were so provocative, and he could not control himself, and under the circumstances, he took a knife and stabbed her. It is pertinent to point out that he was not actually armed at that time; but, he took the knife which was kept aside. It is neither intentional nor premeditated, but due to the quarrel that arose between the spouse and the provocation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the act of the appellant/accused cannot be termed as murder, but it would attract the penal provision of Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC. This Court is of the view that imposition of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the learned trial Judge under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and is directed to suffer seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine and default sentence imposed by the trial Court will hold good. The sentence already undergone by him, shall be given set off. 14.In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv/ To: 1.The Principal Sessions Judge Chengalpattu 2.The Inspector of Police Kelambakkam Police Station Kancheepuram District (Cr.No.274 of 2005) 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4.The Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpattu. 5.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. 6.The District Collector,Chengalpattu. 7.The Director General of Police,Chennai. +1cc to Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, Advocate Sr 67702 MRD (CO) km/12.12. CRL.A.No.71 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/