TREESA VETTAMPARAMBIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deceased Vincent was a young advocate whose practice was mainly in the District Centre, Ernakulam. His death was suspected to be a murder. After investigation his wife was indicted for the murder and also for giving false information regarding the incident in order to screen herself from legal punishment. The Sessions Court acquitted her of murder charge, but convicted her for the offence under S. 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. She filed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) When the appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, it was contended for the appellant that the offence under S. 201 of the I.P.C. cannot be found without establishment of the main offence. The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal for the main offence. However, revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been initiated by the learned single Judge against the order of acquittal. We heard arguments in the appeal and also in the suo motu revision. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the order of acquittal is wrong and he canvassed for conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 302 of the I.P.C. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will be referred to as the accused.

(3.) Deceased was one of the four children of P.W. 1. Deceased and his wife along with their six year old daughter Tesvy were residing in another house at Vennala near Palarivattam in Ernakulam. It appears that the deceased incurred debts. He wanted to dispose of the land and building (in which they resided) which stood in the name of his wife. He succeeded in getting a buyer for those items. Prosecution case is that the proposed sale was to the chagrin of his wife. On the date of occurrence' the deceased, after consuming liquor, returned home in the night and informed his wife that the agreement for sale was to be executed on the following day. There was a hubbub over this dispute between the husband and wife. She inflicted a beat on the forehead of the deceased with a crowbar (M.O. 1). The resultant injury involving his skull and brain brought about his death almost instantaneously. But the accused made it out to all those who reached the house that he committed suicide by hanging. Without knowing the real cause of death, father of the deceased (P.W.1) gave first information statement to the police. The FIR was registered by the police for unnatural death but when the body was subjected to autopsy the police sensed that it was a case of murder. Accused was arrested and after interrogation the investigating officer came to know that the crowbar was concealed beneath firewood splinters stacked in the kitchen. When the crowbar was subjected to chemical analysis in the Forensic Laboratory, it was revealed that it was stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased.