Sudhakaran vs State Of Kerala

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeal are: 1

3. We may now notice the prosecution version as it emerges through the evidence of PW1 and PW5. It was alleged that on 3.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant with the intention of killing his wife, namely, Ajitha @ Poonamma had struck her on her neck with a chopper when she was in the bedroom of his house which is named `Kallumkuzhi', bearing No.289 situated in ward No. IX of Kanjikuzhy panchayat. After committing the murder, the appellant came out of the house and met PW1 and PW5 who were sitting in front of their house. PW1 is the son of PW5. At the time when the appellant approached them he was carrying his child in one arm. He asked PW5 as to whether he could hold the child. When PW5 stepped towards the appellant to take the child, he saw that the appellant was carrying a chopper in the other hand. Immediately PW1 and his father rushed into their house and closed the door. At that time the appellant was seen roaming around their house. He was trying to lay 3 down the child in a lean-to attached to their house. At that stage, PW1 had pointed the beam of a torch on to the appellant, through the window. He saw, in the torch light, that the shirt of the appellant was blood stained and he was also carrying a blood stained chopper. PW1 then came out of his house and went to the nearby house of PW2 and narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter PW1 and PW2 together went to the adjacent house of PW3. When they came back together, they saw that appellant had left the house of PW1. At that stage they were told by PW5 that the appellant had come after killing his wife. According to PW5, the appellant had confessed to the crime. Thereafter all the people in the nearby houses got together and went to the house of the appellant where they found that his wife Ajitha was lying on a cot in her bedroom with blood splattered all over her. They also found that there was no movement in the body of Ajitha. It is further the case of the prosecution that when all the 4 neighbours had gathered in the house of the appellant he had confessed to all of them that he had killed his wife.

4. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement Exb.P1 made by PW1 wherein he narrated the incident as stated above. This witness PW1 has also identified M.O.1 knife which he had seen in the hand of the appellant on the evening of 3.11.2000. PW2 also gave a similar statement. He further stated that the appellant had come to him and asked him to look after the child as he was going to the police station. He is alleged to have stated to PW2 that -

6. The trial court notices that the prosecution has relied on the oral evidences given by PW1 to PW12. The prosecution had also produced the blood stained chopper which had been recovered from the appellant. After examining the dead body of the deceased, inquest report was prepared by PW11 in the presence of the witnesses. The chopper had been seized by him as per Ext.P2 Mahaska. Ext.P3 is the Mahaska prepared by him for seizure of the shirt and dhoti worn by the appellant. These materials were produced before the court as Ext.P7 and P8. The articles recovered from the body of the deceased were produced as M.O.3 to 10 and 10(a). These included night gown, and other under garments, gold ornaments worn by the deceased at the time of the murder. All the recovered articles were sent for Forensic Examination. The Forensic Report was relied upon by the prosecution at the trial. Ext.P10 is the Forensic Science Report. This report revealed that all the items examined, contained human blood belonging to group A. 7

2. Incised wound 9x2x2cm oblique, on right side of back of head upper inner end at the level of occipital protuberance and lower outer and just above right ear.

7. Incised wound 3x1x0.5 cm oblique on the out aspect of left shoulder 2 cm below injury No.6.

299. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

[1970 (3) SCC 533] 28

20. The High Court on examination of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that he was suffering from such mental illness that would enable him to take benefit of Section 84 IPC.

22. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The appeal is dismissed.

OCTOBER 26, 2010.