MAHIM SETTU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence of uxoricide by Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in S.C. No. 252/2007. Appellant married deceased Sabina on 17.08.1997. PW7 Fathima was born in that wedlock. PW2 is the mother of the appellant. The deceased along with the appellant PW2 and PW7 were residing in their house. Deceased was pregnant by four months. Prosecution case is that, appellant was subjecting the deceased wife to cruelty and harassment and on 27.10.2006 while the deceased was lying on the bed due to illness and could not stand up, it was disclosed to the appellant by his mother PW2. Appellant immediately took MO1 reaper and beat her all over her body causing about 42 injuries. PW2 first took the deceased to Mattanchery Hospital. A Gynecologist who was attending her earlier for pregnancy, referred her to General Hospital, Ernakulam where she was admitted as an inpatient. She was thereafter taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, from where she breathed her last on 01.11.2006. PW1, the brother of the deceased getting information, furnished Ext.P1 F.I. Statement. Under Ext.P1(a)F.I.R, crime was registered under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext. P1(a) was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. PW17 the Sub Inspector of police proceeded to the Medical College Hospital and prepared the Ext.P2 Inquest Report. On the materials collected at the time of the inquest, finding that an offence under section 302 of IPC was attracted, Ext.P12 report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate reporting that the offence under Section 302 of IPC is attracted and therefore the case is being investigated incorporating the said offence and requesting the court to get the records and FIR from the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court. The PW18 arrested the appellant on 03.11.2006. PW10 the Asst. professor of Forensic Medicine and Deputy Police Surgeon of the Medial College Hospital conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P4 Postmortem Certificate. The final opinion was reserved till the receipt of pathological and Chemical Examination reports of the viscera and parts of organ collected at the time of autopsy. On getting Ext.P6 report of Chemical Examination and Ext.P7 report of pathology, Ext.P5 final opinion was furnished as death was due to the circulatory failure accelerated by the injuries. After completing the investigation charge was laid by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Session Court. When charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 498A of Indian penal Code was framed appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and identified MO1. After closing the prosecution evidence and questioning under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, finding that there is evidence against the appellant, and is not a case for acquittal, appellant was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence. Dws 1 and 2 were examined and D3 was marked. Exts. D1 and D2 portion of statements of PW1 and PW2 were earlier marked while cross examining the prosecution witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on this evidence convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 and acquitted him for the offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The appeal is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of PW10 the Doctor with Ext.P4 to P7 establish that death of Sabina was caused by the injuries inflicted on her with MO1 reaper and those injuries have accelerated the death due to circulatory failure and when PW10 was examined there was no case that the deceased Sabina suffered any other illness. It was also pointed out the fact that when PW2 disclosed to the appellant that the deceased was lying and she cannot stand up, appellant beat her with the reaper and these facts were not challenged in cross examination and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The learned Public prosecutor also pointed out that the evidence of PW3, a neighbour and an independent witness, corroborated the evidence of PW2 proves that she had seen the appellant beating his wife. The evidence of PW6 the sister of the deceased and PW5 the sister -in -law of the deceased also establish that when they were in the Medical College Hospital with the deceased while changing her dress, they had seen the injuries on the body of the deceased caused by the appellant by beating her, and the evidence of PW7 who is none other than the daughter of the appellant fortifies the prosecution case. It is therefore argued that the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that appellant caused the death of his deceased wife by beating her and therefore appellant committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC is perfectly correct.