KAILASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Indo - Anglo Saxon adversarial system of administration of criminal justice, which we follow, witnesses are the eyes and ears of the Court. It is they who help the Court to ascertain truth and to administer justice. The system is built on the solid rock of sanctity of oath. Unless this sanctity of oath is imbibed by the polity and the witnesses, the system would crumble down and discredit itself. To preserve the sanctity of oath, it is important that the trial is conducted expeditiously. When there is unreasonable gap of time between the culpable event and the trial, the very foundations are shaken. Righteous indignation gives way to misplaced sympathy and the truth discovery process gets defeated and discredited. This is a classic case which points to the urgent need for innovation and reform of the system, if discovery of truth and administration of justice is the real and dominant purpose of the voyage of trial.

(2.) The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under S.302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. He, a person aged 35 years, is alleged to have caused the death of Suguna, his wife, a woman aged 26 years, who had borne two children for him in the wedlock, by acts of violence directed against her inside her matrimonial home at 6.30 pm on 18/10/1999. 4 cuts with MO 1 sickle were allegedly inflicted on the deceased by the appellant. Blunt injury was caused on her head - evidently by hitting her head against a hard surface. Suspicion about her chastity is the alleged motive behind the incident.

(3.) Investigation commenced with the registration of Ext. P1(a) FIR on the basis of Ext. P1 FI Statement lodged by PW 1. PW1 is a relative of the deceased and is admittedly not an eye - witness. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW 33, the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate, after observing all legal formalities, committed the accused to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge framed against him by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 33 and proved Exts. P1 to P27. MOs 1 to 5 were also marked.