Karuppiah vs The Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam Police Station, Pudukottai

N. Dhinakar, J.—The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned

Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, in Sessions Case No.40 of 1993, on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 6.00 p.m. on 24.5.1992, he caused

the death of his wife, Kamatchi, by cutting her indiscriminately with an aruval, M.O.1. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the

accused to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal.

The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows:- The accused is the husband of the deceased and they were married ten years

prior to the date of incident. An year and six months prior to the date of incident, the accused developed intimacy with one Selvi and therefore,

there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased. A panchayat was convened and though the accused was advised, the quarrels

continued. A month prior to the date of incident, the deceased left the house of her husband, the accused, and went away to Kodikkulam, where

her brother was staying. The accused used to go to Kodikkulam and request the deceased to return to her matrimonial home; but, the deceased

was refusing to go to the house of the accused.

On 24.5.1992 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased were sitting in front of the house of P.W.1. The daughter of P.W.1 was

also present. The accused went there armed with an aruval, M.O.1. On seeing the accused coming with an aruval, the deceased started running

chased by the accused. The deceased covered a distance of 15 feet and the accused caught-hold of her. Thereafter, the accused inflicted several

cuts on various parts of her body. The incident was witnessed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and the daughter of P.W.1. They raised alarm and on hearing the

cries, the Talayiri and others rushed to the scene. The accused ran away from the place towards north carrying the aruval with him. The deceased,

who was injured, was placed in a bullock-cart and taken to Kottaipattinam Police Station, where she gave a complaint to P.W.7, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint is Ex.P-1. P.W.7, on the basis of the complaint, registered a case in Crime

No.391 of 1992 against the accused by preparing express reports and Ex.P-13 is a copy of the printed First Information Report. He took up

investigation in the case. He referred the deceased Kamatchi to the hospital for treatment.

On being referred, P.W.4, the duty medical officer attached to Pudukottai Government Hospital, examined Kamatchi at about 11.10 p.m. and

found several cut injuries on her person and thereafter, admitted her into the hospital. Inspite of the treatment, Kamatchi breathed her last at about

6.00 a.m. on 25.5.1992 and the doctor issued Ex.P-6, the death intimation, to the police authorities.

Meanwhile, P.W.7, who was conducting the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-

4, in the presence of P.W.3. He seized M.O.2 blood-stained earth and M.O.3 sample earth under a mahazar Ex.P-5. He examined P.Ws.2 and 3

and recorded their statements. On receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P-6, the crime was altered to one u/s 302 IPC and Ex.P-15 is the express

report in the altered crime. Investigation was thereafter taken up by P.W.8, Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam.

On taking up investigation, P.W.8 went to Government Hospital, Pudukottai, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of Kamatchi

between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars during which, P.Ws.1 and 2 were questioned and their statements were

recorded. Ex.P-16 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over, a requisition was issued for conducting autopsy.

On receipt of the requisition, P.W.5, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pudukottai, conducted autopsy on the body of Kamatchi at

3.45 p.m. on 25.5.1992 and she found the following external injuries:-

A cut injury on the right shoulder to a length of 15 cm.

A ''V'' shaped cut injury measuring 7 cm x 2 cm extending from dorsum of the hand to the middle of the palm.

Fracture of metacarpal bone.

A bone-depth cut injury to a length of 7 cm on the left scaple.

A linear cut injury to a length of 2 cm on the tibia.

Foot amputated at the level of tibia and metatarsal joint.

The doctor found the hyoid bone intact. She issued Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate, with her opinion that the deceased Kamatchi died on

account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 9 to 10 hours prior to post-mortem.

P.W.8, in the meantime, searched for the accused and at 4.00 p.m. on 29.5.1992, arrested him near a bus-stand in the presence of P.W.2.

When questioned, the accused gave a statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion of the said statement, Ex.P-2, the police party was

taken to Vichur village where M.O.1, an aruval, was produced and the same was seized under a mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by P.W.2. The material

objects seized in the case were sent to the court with a request to forward them for analysis. The court, by forwarding the material objects,

obtained Ex.P-11, the report of the chemical analyst, and M.O.12, the report of the serologist, which are to the effect that M.O.1 contain human

blood. Further investigation was taken up by the successor-in-office to P.W.8 and he, after verifying the investigation conducted by P.W.8 and

completing the investigation, filed the final report against the accused on 7.7.1992.

When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused, while denying the circumstances, filed

a written statement in which, he has stated that the deceased, before she left her matrimonial home, complained to him frequently that his second

wife Selvi was in illicit intimacy with one Subbiah and that there used to be frequent quarrels on account of these quarrels between him and the

deceased, the deceased left her matrimonial home for Kodikkulam. He has further averred that he went to the house of the brother of the

deceased at Kodikkulam to bring her back to matrimonial home and she not only refused to go along with him; but, on the contrary, abused him in

filthy language by telling him that his second wife Selvi is in illicit intimacy with another person and that she will not permit him to make her also

sleep with the paramour of his second wife and on account of such words uttered by her, he lost his bearings and cut her. In short, he pleaded

grave and sudden provocation.

The fact that the deceased Kamatchi died on account of homicidal violence stands proved through the evidence of P.W.5, who conducted

autopsy and issued Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate. The accused also did not dispute the fact that Kamatchi died on account of the injuries

suffered by her. We, therefore, hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that Kamatchi died on account of homicidal violence.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined to speak about the incident. Both are independent witnesses. They have, in their evidence, stated that on the

date of incident when the deceased was sitting in front of the house of P.W.1, the accused went there armed with an aruval, M.O.1, and that he

cut her on several parts of the body after chasing her to a distance of 15 feet. The defence did not succeed in eliciting any answer in their favour

except to make a suggestion to P.W.1 that because the deceased used a language provoking the accused, she was cut. Except for the above

suggestion, which is not probablised by any material, there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 for this court to hold that the deceased was

not cut by the accused. In fact, in the written statement filed by the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.c., the accused has also admitted that he has cut the

deceased. We, therefore, hold that the deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the accused.

The final question, that is to be decised by us, is whether the accused cut the deceased on account of grave and sudden provocation. As we

have already stated that except for making a suggestion to P.W.1, no material was produced by the defence to say that the deceased used

provocative language. In his written statement filed u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that the deceased Kamatchi, who is his wife, left her

matrimonial home after picking up quarrels with him, by saying that his second wife is in illicit intimacy with a person called Subbiah. It is his further

averment in the written statement that on the date of incident, when he went to Kodikkulam village and requested her to return to her matrimonial

home, she refused to go along with him and that she abused him and also told him that she will not permit him to make her sleep with Subbiah. As

this statement of the accused is not supported by any material, the written statement of the accused filed u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is, in our view, only an

afterthought and must have been made on advice. Mere suggestion to a witness is not sufficient for us to hold that the accused cut the deceased on

account of grave and sudden provocation.

Section 105 of the Evidence Act contemplates that when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of

circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained

in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances

. The words ""... the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances"", are significant, in that, unless the accused establishes that his act falls

within any of the Exceptions, the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances. In the present case, the accused did not produce any material

and has not substantiated the averments made in his written statement filed u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was cut by him due to grave and

sudden provocation. Therefore, the court cannot but hold that the accused has committed the offence of murder and he is not entitled to the benefit

of any of the exceptions.

On the discussion made above, we feel that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused as

stated above. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.