VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mindless act of the husband, leading to the death of the wife resulting in the conviction of the former on the evidence of the son is the judgment from which the present appeal is filed. The accused-husband was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25000/- with default sentence of RI of three months.

(2.) Smt.Preethy R Nair, State Brief appointed for the appellant-accused argued that the conviction was based on the sole evidence of PW17 who was not an eye witness to the incident. It is argued that PW17 did not have a version in the evidence consistent to his statement before the Police. The contradictions marked as D2 to D4 can result only in the conclusion that PW17s evidence is not safe to be believed. It is also argued that the accused is entitled to Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The act if at all pinned on the accused, was not premeditated and in all probability would have been committed due to a provocation on the part of the deceased. Alternatively it is contended that except for PW17 none spoke of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence. The arrest said to have been made by the Investigating Officer on the next day of the incident is disproved by the evidence of PW17 and the SI of Police examined as PW12, both of whom spoke of the presence of the accused in the Police Station. PW17 admitted to have seen his father in the Police Station on the night of the incident. PW12 asserts to have seen the accused in the Police Station on the next day morning; while the arrest is said to have been made on the afternoon of the next day. There is no scientific evidence to connect the accused in the crime since neither his hands or his dress showed any trace of blood.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader for Atrocities against Woman and Children Smt. S. Ambikadevi opposed the claim of the accused under Exception 1 on the ground that a hapless woman was killed by the accused without any provocation and in a ghastly manner. The Postmortem report noticed 14 ante mortem injuries, which according to the Doctor could have been caused by MO3 granite stone which was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the homestead which was the place of occurrence. The injuries could have been caused only by repeated clobbering on the head of the poor woman with the granite stone. The stone reveals traces of blood, which was not of sufficient quantity to discern the exact Group. That an accident of a free fall could not have led to the injuries was specifically spoken of by the Doctor who conducted the Postmortem(PW21). PW17 though not an eye witness saw his parents quarreling immediately before the incident, upon which he retired to a room in the house. While he was sitting inside the room, within a few minutes, he heard a cry and on coming out, saw his mother lying down on the floor, her head drenched in blood. He also spoke of having seen his father, the accused going away from the scene of occurrence and throwing away the granite stone. It is argued that it is not the number of witnesses that matter, but, the credibility of the witness who spoke on the specific facts leading to the occurrence and what transpired immediately later. The learned Government Pleader would seek for dismissal of the appeal.