IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 626 of 2009() ----------------------- SC.316/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------ THANKACHAN @ MATHAI AGED 43, S/O. DEVASSIA THACHOTU VEEDU, KANNADIPARA, CHENGLAI THALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF AMBALAVAYAL, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON 3/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- Crl.A.No.626 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Chitambaresh,J. The sole accused in Crime No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad is the appellant. He stood charge sheeted for offence alleged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He challenges the conviction entered and the sentence imposed in this appeal. 2. The allegation is one of uxoricide. The accused is alleged to have murdered his wife at about 1.30 p.m. on 25.4.2003. The incident is said to have taken place at the residence of the couple which is owned by his brother-in-law. PW.1 is the brother- in-law who gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement. He was the first to see his sister lying dead with injuries. PW.2 is the brother- in-law of PW.1 and also a co-worker in the banana plantation. PW.3 is a Panchayat member and an attestor to Ext.P2 inquest report. PW.4 is an attestor to Ext.P3 mahazar whereunder M.O.1 chopper was recovered. PW.5 is another co-worker who rushed to Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 2 the spot on alarm raised by PW.1. PW.6 is the family friend of the deceased. He was examined to prove the frequent bickerings between the accused and his wife. PW.7 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. Ext.P4 certificate issued by him shows nine antemortem injuries out of which three are deep chop cut wounds. PW.8 is the chemical examiner who issued Ext.P5 report. He had detected traces of human blood in M.O.1 chopper, M.O.2 soil and M.O.3 shirt of the accused. PW.9 is the police officer who registered Ext.P1(a) First Information Report. PW.10 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P6 site plan. PW.11 is the attestor to Ext.P2 inquest conducted on the body of the deceased. He identified M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6 dresses worn by the deceased. PW.12 is the police officer who arrested the accused at 7.30 p.m. on the same day. He identified M.O.3 and M.O.7 dresses worn by the accused. He effected recovery of M.O.1 chopper from a pit as shown by the accused under Ext.P3 mahazar. He also took into custody M.O.8 and M.O.9 nose stud and hair sample of the deceased under Ext.P8 Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 3 mahazar. The successor in office (CW.18) eventually laid the charge sheet. The accused denied all the charges levelled against him when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The house where the incident took place is on a hillock and the plantation where Pws.1, 2 and 5 were working is on a lower level. The deceased had earlier got married to another. That matrimony did not last long and she returned to her parental home. There she fell in love with the accused, a worker who was much younger to her. They eloped. They get married by a registered agreement. Later the family including PW.1 accepted the relationship and brought them back. The couple were residing in that house in connection with the work in the field. Pws. 1 and 6 testified that there were frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased over share in property. There was bickering even on the previous day. That there was strain in the relationship between the accused and the deceased is discernible from Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 4 evidence. 4. Pws.1, 2 and 5 had last seen the accused with the deceased in the house when they returned for taking breakfast and lunch. The accused did not join the other workers for lunch even though invited. The accused was instead cutting firewood in the compound of the house. Pws.1, 2 and 5 later saw the accused leaving the place in a huff after changing his dress. PW.1 on returning home found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with face downwards. Pws.2 and 5 joined PW.1 when he raised a hue and cry. The trial court has had the advantage of watching the demeanor and assessing the credibility of Pws.1, 2 and 5. The appellate court must take note of the evident advantage of the trial court in the matter of evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. 5. Yet another clinching circumstance is the surrender of the accused before PW.12 on the same evening. The accused is said to have revealed information to the police about the place where M.O.1 chopper had been kept hidden. The subsequent recovery of M.O.1 chopper on the next day in Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 5 the presence of PW.4 goes a long way to establish the prosecution case. The credibility of PW.4 has not been attempted to be shaken on any count. The presence of human blood in M.O.3 shirt of the accused as detected in Ext.P5 chemical analysis report is also an eye opener. The accused has no case that the shirt recovered from the house belonged to another or that blood was smeared on it later. Similarly PW.8 had found blood stains in M.O.1 chopper used for the crime. That the accused had succumbed to the chop cut injuries is evident from Ext.P4 postmortem certificate. 6. It is contended that the oral evidence of PW.1 should be disbelieved. He has an interest against the accused as the appellant, if proved to be guilty cannot claim the property of his deceased wife. The evidence shows that the couple who had eloped were brought back by the loving brother of the deceased (PW.1) to live in the family property. There is nothing to show that PW.1 ever entertained any animus against the accused. It is further argued that PW.1 may not have been present at the scene when the deceased suffered injuries. The Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 6 evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 5 supported broadly by the contents of prompt Ext.P1 exposes the hollowness of this contention. M.O.3, though it is proved to be blood stained is not proved to be the shirt of the accused, it is contended. It is true that the witnesses have not identified M.O.3 as the shirt worn by the accused on that day. This omission notwithstanding, it has to be noted that the house was occupied by the couple - accused and deceased. The accused has no case that the shirt could be that of any others. The significance of that circumstance is not lost or obliterated for want of specific identification of M.O.3 as the shirt worn by the accused when Pws.1, 2 and 5 saw the accused last in the custody of the accused. The evidence of recovery of M.O.1 weapon is brought to be asserted on the ground that the evidence of police officials must be approached with distrust. We find no reason to approach the testimony of Pws.1, 2 and 5 with any doubt or distrust. The fact that the weapon was concealed in a pit which in turn is in an open area does not in any way affect the admissibility or acceptability of that piece of evidence. Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 7 7. All the circumstances aforementioned cumulatively point to the guilt of the accused in the crime. The chain of circumstances is complete and is inconsistent with the theory of innocence. There was only a faint suggestion by the accused that there was another way behind the back of the house. This is belied by the evidence of PW.1 and others which indicates that the only way is on the front leading to the plantain field. The other contention of the accused that he was roped in when he went to the police station to inform about murder is puerile. Because no sane person would wait to change his dress to go to the police station after seeing his wife lying murdered. That somebody else would have come through the way on the back and committed the murder is a contention to be stated and rejected. The conduct of the accused - of quietly leaving the house without informing Pws.1, 2 and 5, knocks the bottom out of that theory. That piece of proceed conduct renders the only other possibility suggested unworthy of acceptance and incapable of arousing the semblance of any reasonable doubt. 8. The proved strain in the relationship, the fact that Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 8 the accused was last seen alone in the company of the deceased at their house shortly prior to the incident, the fact that he left the scene of the crime quietly without leaving any information to the others including PW.1, the fact that he surrendered before the police after some time, the fact that on his information blood stained weapon of offence was recovered by the police where it lay concealed, the fact that his shirt was found to be blood stained and his inability to offer any explanation for these circumstances do make the chain complete. The chain of circumstances does point to the guilt of the accused and rules out any possible alternative theory consistent with the innocence of the accused. 9. The irresistible conclusion therefore is that the accused had stabbed his wife with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury which is proved to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This squarely attracts clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (if not clause firstly) making the accused liable to be punished for committing murder. The judgment of the trial court convicting Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2009 9 the accused and the imposing on him the punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted on any ground. 10. The criminal appeal fails and is hence dismissed. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.