Karuppaiah vs State

P. Murgesen, J.—This Appeal has been filed by the accused against the judgment rendered in S.C.No. 479 of 1997 by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Madurai.

The Prosecution case is as follows:

i) P.W.1 is a resident of Ramarayar Mandapam. P.W.4 Murugan is her husband. The deceased Mookkammal is her elder sister. The accused is

the husband of Mookkammal. P.W.3, Shanthi and Lakshmi were residing in the same street. P.W.1''s sister married one Parameswaran. But, he

deserted his wife-P.W.1''s sister along with a female child eight years ago. Thereafter only, her sister married the accused. Later, the accused

suspected the character of P.W.1''s sister and often, quarreled with her. Two days before the incident the deceased Mookkammal cooked food

and P.W.1 and her husband have taken their food. At that time, the accused came and quarreled with her asking to serve the food. Then, on

21.05.1997, at about 10.54 p.m. on hearing the sound, P.W.1 and her husband went to the house of Mookkammal, the victim. At that time, the

accused attacked her with crowbar on the forehead and also kicked her on the stomach. Then P.W.1, taking her sister went to the Police Station

and reported the matter. The Police recorded the statement and obtained the signature of Mookkammal and P.W.1. The said statement is Ex.P.1.

Then the victim was taken to the hospital, where she died after two days.

ii) P.W.2, Dr. Maheswaran examined Mookkammal at the hospital and at that time, the patient was conscious and he found the following injuries:

Lacerated injury in the forehead, midline 5 cm X 3 cm bone deep with haematoma 5 cm in diameter.

lacerated injury left parieto-occipital rgion 5 cm X 2 cm skin depth.

Doctor gave the Accident Register Ex.P.2.

iii) At the time of occurrence, there was electric light. It was spoken by P.W.6, wireman attached to Thamukkam Electricity Board. P.W.8,

Shanmugasundaram, Head Constable 1715, recorded the statement of Mookkammal, Ex.P.1 and registered a case in crime No. 290 of 1997.

Printed First Information Report is Ex.P.9. He sent a copy of Ex.P.1 and P.9 to the Judicial Magistrate and his higher officials. Then he went to the

scene of occurrence and prepared a draft sketch Ex.P.10. Then he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.4, Periapondi.

Then he recovered M.O.1 crowbar under Athatchi P.4 in the presence of witnesses. On 23.05.1997 at about 17.30 hour she received the death

message of Mookkammal and obtained Death Report and then handed over the files to the Inspector.

iv) P.W.9 Jawahar gave treatment for the victim and the file regarding the treatment given to her is EX.P.11. Death report is Ex.P.12.

v) P.W.11, Subbiah, Inspector took up the case for further investigation. On receipt of death memo, he altered the Section into 302 I.P.C and

prepared express report Ex.P.15 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate. Then he went to the scene of occurrence and he compared the

observation mahazar and sketch prepared by the Head Constable and he did not prepare separate observation mahazar and sketch. He enquired

witnesses, Ariyanathan, Murugan, Shanthi, and Lakshmi and he did not record their statements separately, since their statements were already

recorded by the said Head Constable. Then he recorded the statements of the Head Constable and the Grade I Police, who sent the medical

memo. Then he went to mortuary and enquired the witnesses, namely, Arinathan, Murugan, Shanthi, and Lakshmi in the presence of

Panchayatdars and the inquest report is Ex.P.16. On 24.05.1997 at about 12.30 noon, arrested the accused and remanded to the Court. Then he

enquired the doctor who conducted the post mortem and sent M.O.1 rod for chemical examination with a requisition Ex.P.5. He also enquired the

Head Constable. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

vi) P.W.10, Dr. Ramasamy on receipt of requisition Ex.P.13, conducted the post mortem and he gave post mortem report Ex.P.14. P.W.7, the

HeadClerk attached to Madurai Judicial Magistrate Court No.II on receipt of the requisition, he sent M.O.1 for Chemical examination. The

chemical report is Ex.P.7 and serological report is Ex.P.8.

Before the lower Court, P.Ws1 tell were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked. Ex.Mos. 1 to 3 were marked.

On consideration of the entire materials on record, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai found the accused guilty for the offence u/s 304(ii)

I.P.C and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

Challenging the said judgment, the accused had preferred the present appeal.

The Point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved its case satisfactorily?

The point: Though sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, heard the counsel for

the respondent.

P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased Mookkammal. P.W.4 Murugan is P.W.1''s husband. The deceased Mookkammal is P.W.1''s elder sister.

The accused is the husband of Mookkammal. P.W.1''s sister married one Parameswaran. He deserted her sister along with a female child eight

years ago. The child was with the mother of P.W.1. Mookkammal used to go for cooly work in building construction work. While she was

attending the work, she has developed intimacy with the accused. Thereafter, both of them lived together as husband and wife. P.W.1 used to visit

the house of Mookkammal along with her husband, Murugan. Later on, the deceased developed some ill-feeling and also suspected the fidelity of

his wife Mookkammal. The accused used to quarrel with his wife very often, whenever the said Murugan visited the house of the accused. On the

fateful day, at about 10.15 p.m. the accused came there and quarreled with her stating that when she was providing meals to her brother-in-law,

why she was not providing food for him and went near her to attack her. When Mookkammal attempted to escape from the accused, the accused

took a crowbar and attacked on her forehead and also on the backside of the head. Then she was taken to the hospital for treatment. She was

treated by P.W.9, Dr. Jawahar. Inspite of treatment, she died in the hospital after two days. Post mortem was conducted by P.W.5. Then the

wheel of criminal law was set into motion. Evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 would show that the accused attacked his wife Mookkammal and the

occurrence took place when the victim did not provide food for him. The accused suspected the character of his wife. So there arose quarrel

between them and accused suddenly took the crowbar and. attacked his wife. The evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 are cogent and convincing and there

is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3. The accused had no prior motive or intention to murder his wife, but it was only due to

sudden provocation. Learned trial Judge, after considering all the materials carefully and meticulously, came to the conclusion that the accused was

guilty u/s 304(ii) I.P.C and not u/s 302 I.P.C. as alleged by the prosecution since there was no intention to cause death or to cause such bodily

injury as is likely to cause death.

On a careful scanning of the entire evidence, I am of the view that there is no reasonable and valid ground to differ from the findings of the trial

Judge and hence, the same is confirmed.

So far as sentence of imprisonment for a period of ten years imposed on the accused is concerned, considering the fact that the accused

belongs to poor family and he has no intention to murder his wife, and also his age, it is just and proper to reduce the period of sentence into five

years.

With the above modification in the sentence alone, this appeal is disposed of.