Navamani vs The State

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 142 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Trichy. By judgment dated 11.11.2010, the trial Court has convicted him u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- , in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The deceased in this case was one Jenci Beula. She was the wife of the accused. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is a neighbour. The marriage between them was solemnized on 24.05.2002. After some time of the marriage, P.W.1 gave a landed property to the accused for the purpose of constructing a house. When P.W.1, suggested to the accused to raise housing loan for the purpose of constructing the house, the accused was not agreeable for the same. The accused, therefore, said that he would give away the said property to a local church by way of gift. The accused and the deceased were living in the same house, where P.W.1 was living. P.W.1 and his family members were living in the downstairs and the accused and the deceased were living in the first floor. On 06.03.2003, P.W.1, his wife, the deceased and the accused were all talking in the house of the P.W.1. By that time, there was a discussion about the construction of the house. Since the accused was adamant in his stand that he would give away the property in favour of the church, there was a quarrel among themselves. The quarrel went on for quite some time. After that, the deceased went to the first floor of the house, where she was residing. The accused followed her. After 10 minutes of their leaving, there was an alarm raised by the deceased. Attracted by the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others ran to the first floor. According to them, they found that the accused was cutting the deceased with aruval on her neck and on her hand. P.W.1 intervened and attempted to save. The accused flood away from scene of occurrence. M.O. 1 is the aruval used by the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 took the deceased to the downstairs for the purpose of taking her to a local hospital. He laid her on the sofa. Even before, he could procure an auto for the hospital, she died. Immediately, thereafter he proceeded to Thiruverumbur Police station, where he preferred a complaint under Ex. P.1. P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Thiruverumbur police station, on receiving Ex. P1 complaint, registered a case at 11 p.m., on 06.03.2003 in Crime No. 177 of 2003 u/s 302 IPC. Ex. P8 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Exs. P1 and P8 to Court forthwith and handed over the case diary to P.W.6, the then Inspector of Police, for investigation.

1.1. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.6 proceeded to the place of occurrence at 12.15 a.m. He arranged for photographing the place of occurrence and the dead body with the help of a photographer. Then, he prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. He also prepared Ex. P10, the rough sketch. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses between 01.15 a.m. to 04.00 a.m. Ex. P11 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body to the Government Hospital, Trichy, for autopsy.

1.2. P.W.4, Doctor Karthikeyan was the Professor of Forensic Medicine at Trichy Government Hospital. He conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.03.2003 at 2.00 p.m. During the autopsy, he found the following external and internal injuries:

An oblique chop wound, 14 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep � 4cm below the lobule of left ear to left nostril, underlying structures exposed. The muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut, the edges are clean cut.

An oblique chop wound, 13.5 cmx 5 cm bone deep from the lobule of the left ear to the centre of back of the neck. The edges are clean cut. The muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. Cut fracture of occipital bone present.

An oblique incised wound, 13 cm x 3.5 c.m x bone deep. 5 cm above the second wound on the occipital region of the scalp. Cut fracture of occipital bone present.

An oblique incised wound, 9 cmx 4cmxbone deep, centre of the back of chest, 4 cm below the wound No. 3.

A chop wound, 9 cm x 3.5 cm x bone deep, on the left wrist. The edges are clean cut. The muscles, blood vessels, nerves and tendons are clean cut. Cut fracture of the lower end of both bones of the left fore are present.

A transverse incised wound, involving left thumb, index finger, middle ring and little finger present, the distal phalanx of left thumb is hanging.

An oblique incised wound, 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, on the back of left hand, 2 cm below the back of little finger.

Traumatic amputation of left ring finger at the level of 2nd phalanx, edges are clean cut.

Fracture base of skull, posterior cranial fossa present.

Sub arachnoid hemorrhage on both occipital lobes of the cerebrum.

Blood is diffused into the tracks of all the wounds.

The above mentioned wounds are all ante-mortem.

No other external, internal or bony wound present.

Finally, he opined that �the deceased would have died of Hypoxia and hemorrhage due to multiple wounds.

1.3. Continuing the investigation, P.W.6 examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements. He also recovered the cloth from the body of the deceased. On the same day, at 5.30 p.m., he arrested the accused in the presence of the same witnesses. His dress was found to have been stained with blood. He recovered lungi M.O. 2, full hand shirt M.O. 3, which was stained with blood under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. On 10.03.2003, he examined the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem. He also made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. Ex. P16 is the chemical analysis report and Ex. P17 is the serology report. According to them, there were human blood on the material objects. On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet on 28.04.2003 u/s 302 IPC.

Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a charge u/s 302 IPC. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charge, he pleaded innocence and therefore, he was put on trial. During the course of the trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked, besides 10 material objects.

Out of the six witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses. When the above incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he neither had chosen to examine any witnesses nor marked any documents. Having considered the above, the trial court found him guilty u/s 302 IPC and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before us with this appeal.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant appointed as State Brief counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed because they are either closely related to the deceased or highly interested in the case of the prosecution. But, we find it very difficult to accept the said contention. It is not the law that the evidence of a close relative deserves to be rejected always on that score. The law is that the evidence of such a closely related witness needs a close scrutiny. If the evidence of such witnesses pass the test of such scrutiny, there will be no legal impediment to act on the same. In this case, P.W.1 is, of course, the father of the deceased. But, his presence cannot be denied at any stretch of imagination because the occurrence had taken place just in his house. The time of occurrence is also around 10 p.m. Therefore, it would have been quite natural for him to be present in his house. P.W.2 is his neighbour. Therefore, at that crucial moment, it would have been quite natural for him to be in his house. P.W.1 has further stated in a vivid fashion about the quarrel, which happened in the down floor of the house with the deceased and the accused. The quarrel went on for quite some time. Though P.W.1 has been subjected to cross examination by the accused at length, nothing has been brought out on record to discard his evidence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are to be rejected holding the same to be unbelievable is only to be rejected.

From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is crystal clear that it was this accused, who cut the deceased with aruval indiscriminately. P.W.4, the doctor, who conducted autopsy has noticed as many as 9 external injuries. All the said injuries are cut injuries, which could have been caused only by aruval, according to his opinion. Thus, the medical evidence also during the investigation corroborated the same. The doctor has further opined that the said injuries would have been caused by M.O. 1 aruval. M.O. 1 has been duly identified by P.W.1, as the one with which the accused caused injury on the deceased. Thus, by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused, who caused injuries on the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

Coming to the First Information Report, we find no delay in either preferring the complaint or in forwarding the same to the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out anything to doubt the very genesis of the FIR. The complaint lodged promptly in this case also goes to further strengthen the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. For all these reasons, we are inclined to confirm the finding of the trial Court that it was this accused, who caused injuries on the deceased and further the death was homicidal.

Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even assuming that the death was caused by the accused, still, the offence would not fall u/s 302 IPC at all. According to him, the act of the accused would fall within the ambit of Section 304(ii) IPC.

We have anxiously considered the said submissions.

From the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that there was a quarrel among the family members including the deceased and the accused for quite some time during the night hours, in respect of the proposed construction of the house. It was only at the end of the quarrel, the deceased went up to the first floor. The accused also followed. It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there was a hue and cry. It gives an inference that there would have been more quarrel between the husband and wife. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused, while following the deceased, did not have aruval in his hand. Therefore, it is clear that the aruval would have been available somewhere in the first floor of the house. It could, therefore, be seen that in the quarrel between the husband and wife, the accused had taken the aruval, which was incidentally available there and cut the deceased in the quarrel. Absolutely, there is no evidence of pre meditation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the act of the accused will squarely fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC and therefore, the offence for which the appellant is to be convicted is only u/s 304 (ii) IPC.

Now, coming to the quantum of punishment and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a poor young man. He may be given a chance to reform and to be a useful citizen of this Country. In our considered opinion, having regard to the fact that he has killed his wife in a domestic quarrel, the same was unpremeditated, the number of injuries caused, his family circumstances, his socio-economic background and all the material evidences, we are of the view that imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years together with a fine of Rs. 500/- will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court u/s 302 IPC is set aside; instead he is convicted u/s 304 (ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- , in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be set off, u/s 428 Cr.P.C.