MADAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although on the merits of the appeal the sordid facts involved give rise to same conclusion similar to the one arrived at by the Court below on the convincing evidence led for the prosecution in support, of the charge levelled against the appellant of having committed the murder of his own wife right inside his house at Honnur village, at broad day light at about 9-30 a.m. resulting in the appellant being sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C. No. 29/ 88 dated 16-11-88, we find very little reason to depart from the finding of the guilt recorded by the Sessions Judge or with the endeavour made by the prosecution to ram home the charge to the accused. We are nonetheless persuaded by the argument of learned counsels Sri Seshachala who appears herein as Amicus curiae in this matter, who says all said and done accepting the prosecution case at its face value is without any reason to demur whatsoever, even then the offence which the accused could be said to have committed is not one punishable u/ S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but a lesser one i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/S. 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code meriting a sentence lesser than that of life imprisonment imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The question raised by Mr. Seshachala depends mainly on the confession made by the accused to the police as also the confession made to P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the police station and in all probability in the presence of the police officers themselves could still be relied upon in favour of the accused to spell out the lesser offence of culpablehomicide not amounting to murder, vis-a-vis the one for which he has presently been convicted. The above question is no doubt of considerable nicety but the diligence on either side has resulted in the production of only two authorities in support of the proposition right now under consideration and otherwise we appear to be on virgin ground.

(3.) We shall, however, briefly refer to a few facts necessary for the disposal of the point under consideration to which we have drawn attention supra. The accused herein a middle aged man of 40 years stands charged with having committed the murder of his wife a lady by name Sakamma from whom he had three children. At the time of the incident the youngest one Nangammanni, P.W. 12 hardly 5 or 6 years was living with the parents at the village of Honnur within the jurisdiction of Yelandur Police Station of Mysore Taluk. Although there is not much of direct evidence explaining the behaviour of the accused in slaughtering his wife on whom he had inflicted 12 injuries, the cause appears to be the wife's illicit intimacy with a neighbour P.W. 11 Boraiah and their conduct is said to have become so notorious the couple had been even surprised by the accused when they were together and it is said despite the warning by the accused the acts of infidelity had continued. It would appear, on the date of incident he had gone out in the morning for a short while. On his return he found Boraiah P.W. 11 stealing out of his house and on going inside he found the wife adjusting the folds of her saree indicating that a little before there had been some intrusion. Not unnaturally he suspected the wife had once again committed the indiscretion of carrying on the illegal liaison contacted by her with P.W. 11 Boraiah and therefore, feeling greatly annoyed and angry, he had immediately taken a sickle and assaulted his own wife mercilessly to death in the bargainrecording 12 injuries on her to which the victim had no option but to succumb to. These are matters of record having later transpired from the post mortem report Ex.P. 13 and the evidence of P.W. 14 Dr. Ramaswamy. The story runs and appears to be overwhelmingly supported by evidence on the aspect, the accused immediately after killing the wife had essayed straight to the Police Station at Yelandur hardly 2 or 3 Kms. from the village and had surrendered before the police with the blood stained 'matchu' and all the apparel on him stained with the wife's blood being seized at the police station. A Sub-Inspector who was on duty recorded the statement of the accused later treated as the first information report at Ex.P. 18 which runs as follows: