IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23-10-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 of 2009 Ambrose ..Appellant/Accused ..vs.. State by Inspector of Police, Thavalakuppam Circle, Pondicherry. (Crime No.5 of 2002) ..Respondent/Complainant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, made in S.C.No.70 of 2006, dated 25.06.2009. For Appellant : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondent : Mr.T.Murugesan, Senior Public Prosecutor(Pondicherry) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Division, Pondicherry, made in S.C.No.70 of 2006, whereby the single and sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C.and awarded the life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased Adaikala Mary. The appellant/accused is her husband and they have three children and there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased and he suspected her fidelity and also told her not to go for job. But, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in order to meet the family circumstances, she had to go for work and he also remained unemployed. (b) On the date of occurrence, i.e.on 18.01.2002 at about 9.30 AM, the accused and the deceased alighting from a bus and they were found quarreling with each other before one Kailash Hotel. P.W.4 witnessed the same. At that time, P.W.1, Assistant working in the Village Administrative Office, was waiting in the bus stop and he also witnessed the quarrel between them. The appellant pushed his wife down and took out a knife from his waist and stabbed her indiscriminately. (c) At that time P.W.2, the Secretary of the BLESS Social Organisation came in a Tata Sumo car. P.W.1 and others asked his help and he found the lady lying down with profuse bleeding and at the request of the villagers, she was taken to the hospital. The accused was actually caught red handed. (d) P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of respondent Police Station at about 10.30 AM and also produced the accused and a case came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2002 for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. (e) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation on receipt of the first information report. He went to the place of occurrence and then to the Government General Hospital, Pondicherry, where he received the death intimation of Adaikalamary. The accused came forward to give a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses and the same was recorded and the admissible part is Ex.P- 15. P.W.16 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection of the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-19, rough sketch Ex.P-18 and he caused the photographs to be taken through P.W.9 and he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars at the hospital and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-25. Following the same, the dead boy was subjected to post- mortem. He remanded the accused to judicial custody. (f) P.W.8, doctor attached to the Government General Hospital, Pondicherry, conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Adaikala Mary and gave a post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-8, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. (g) P.W.16 recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence as well as from the dead body under the cover of mahazars Exs.P-16 and P-17 and the same were subjected to chemical examination, which resulted in Ex.P-23 and P.24. On completion of investigation, P.W.17 filed the final report against the accused under section 302 I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (h) The case was committed to the Court of Session, Pondicherry, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 26 exhibits and 14 material objects. 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 against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials. On doing so, the trial Judge took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant/accused guilty and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, only one witness was examined as eye witness-P.W.1, who happened to be the Assistant working in the Village Administrative Office and the evidence of P.W.1 was an inconsistent and the discrepancies with other circumstances were available in the case; that the trial court has carried away the same for the simple reason that he was the Assistant, working in the Village Administrative Office, who was the official obliged to the police and when the accused was seen near the dead body, it entertained suspicion over the accused who have got quarreled with the deceased for the past three months; that he had no role to play and he was innocent; that equally, the evidence of P.W.2, who travelled in the Tata Sumo, which was used for the purpose of taking the accused to the police station, should not have been believed; that it is highly improbable that the accused was having a knife and he was fully prepared to commit the offence by bringing a knife along with him on the date of occurrence and apart from that, the alleged confession and the recovery of M.O.2 knife were all nothing but cooked up documents. Hence, the trial court should have rejected the case of the prosecution. 4. Further, on the second line of arguments, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, P.W.1 has categorically spoken that there was a quarrel between the spouse at the time of the occurrence; that even P.W.6, the mother of the deceased, deposed that both the accused and the deceased were quarreling for three months and apart from that, even the inquest report would indicate that he was carrying the knife for cutting vegetables and all would go to show that he could not have any intention to cause death and it was sudden quarrel between them and thus, in the absence of any intention to cause the death, it would not attract the penal provision of murder. Therefore, the legal provision has to be looked into if the Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant has caused the death. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Court heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not in controversy that in the incident that had taken place on 18.01.2002 at about 9.30 PM at the place of occurrence, as put forth by the prosecution, the said Adaikala Mary was stabbed to death. Following the case registered under section 302 IPC, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation of the case and after conducting the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, who has given a categorical opinion, as a witness before the Court and through the contents of the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-8 that she had died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and thus, the deceased died out of stab injuries, as put forth by the prosecution, was never disputed by the appellant before the trial court and hence, there is no impediment in recording so. 7. In order to substantiate the charge that it was the accused, who stabbed her, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the Assistant working in the Village Administrative Office. The criminal jurisdiction expects only the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence. Merely because the prosecution rests upon the evidence of only one witness, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted or rejected. P.W.1 happened to be the Assistant of the Village Administrative Office. On a careful scrutiny, the Court has accepted the evidence of P.W.1 since it is cogent and trust worthy. Apart from that, the court was able to see suspicious circumstances against the accused. According to P.W.1, he was waiting for a bus in the bus stop and at that time, both the appellant and his wife, the deceased, got down from the bus and the appellant pushed her down and stabbed her indiscriminately. Further it is to be pointed out that the evidence of P.W.2 was in corroboration with P.W.1. According to P.W.2, the appellant was caught red handed and was taken to the police station in the Tata Sumo, accompanied by P.W.1 and thus, all would go to believe the case put forth by the prosecution. Yet another circumstance against the accused is, the immediate arrest of the accused at the place of occurrence; the production of the accused before the police station; the registration of the case and the investigation was taken up by P.W.16 following the same, all have taken place in a few hours. The medical opinion canvassed by P.W.8 also stood in full corroboration with the testimony and the recovery of M.O.1 pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused also, pointing to the nexus of the crime of occurrence, would be suffice to prove the guilty of the accused, who stabbed his wife, the deceased. Since there are abundant evidence in favour of the prosecution, the court is unable to notice any merit in any one of the contentions put forth by the appellant and hence they are liable to be rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In so far as the second line of arguments is concerned, the Court is unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.6 would go to show that during the relevant time, Adaikala Mary was employed and three months prior to the occurrence, by suspecting her fidelity, he made all attempts to stop her from going for job. It was, P.W.6, who advised her to go for job in order to pay back the debts and also in view of the family circumstances and all the days, the accused had been accompanying the deceased every day to her work place and making trouble and on the date of occurrence also, he was going with her. In the instant case, it is brought to the notice of the Court that he was also having a knife in his waist at the time of occurrence, through which, he indiscriminately stabbed her, which are noticed in the post mortem certificate. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused emphasized on the word 'quarrel' which was between the spouse at the time of occurrence; but the word mere 'quarrel' between the husband and wife would not be suffice and it must be sudden quarrel which would impel the accused to act so. But it is for the Court to appreciate the facts and circumstances and under these circumstances, the act of the accused, namely, attempting to stop her from going for work for the past three months and carrying a knife with him and stabbing her indiscriminately, all would go to show that it was not out of sudden quarrel, but the appellant has intentionally done and hence, the act of the accused would attract the penal provision of murder and the trial court was perfect in recording the finding that the appellant was guilty under section 302 IPC and awarding of life imprisonment, which, in the considered opinion of the Court, rightly too and hence, the judgment of the trial court does not require any disturbance either factually or legally in the hands of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. gl Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo 1.The II Additional Sessions Judge Pondicherry. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thavalakuppam Circle, Pondicherry. (Crime No.419 of 2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4. The Central Prison, Pondicherry. +1 cc to The Public Prosecutor,Union Territory of Pondicherry, SR.No.56053. +1 cc to Mr. E.J. Ayyappan, Advocate, SR.No. 55949. Judgment in Crl.A.No.417 of 2009 ka(co) ar/3.11.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/