VARGHESE AURUMBAYAM KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU VALIYAVAZHY CHILAMKARA DESOM KEZHAROOR VILLAGE Vs. STATE OF KEALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein has been arraigned under Section 302 IPC. According to the prosecution, the appellant, on 8.2.2003 at about 9.00 p.m., had intentionally caused the death of his wife Ramani @ Lekshmi, aged 38 years, in the kitchen of their marital house by hacking on her head and neck, with a chopper. THE motive, as alleged by the prosecution, was the suspicion of infidelity harboured by the appellant against his wife. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 302 IPC to a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence of two years.

(2.) IMMEDIATELY after the alleged incident, at 10.00 p.m., P.W.1, a member of the Local Body, informed the commission of the offence by Exhibit P1 F.I. Statement before the Vellarada Police Station. Based on Exhibit P1 F.I.Statement, the Sub Inspector, P.W.18, registered Crime No.71 of 2003. The F.I.R. having been immediately forwarded to the Court, the same was endorsed at 10.30 a.m. on 10.02.2003. Investigation commenced by the Circle Inspector, P.W.20, culminated in the filing of the Final Report before the Magistrate's Court, which committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court, having framed the charges as stated above, trial was commenced and ended in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, against which the above appeal is filed.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge having elaborately considered the entire evidence recorded, we deem it fit, in the present appeal to deal with only the circumstances that have been found to form a chain of circumstances without a break linking the appellant unerringly with the charge framed. It is to be mentioned here that the evidence tendered by the Investigating Officer would reveal that the prosecution had an eye witness to the occurrence in the form of the mother of the appellant, who, however, passed away before the trial commenced. Hence, the prosecution necessarily had to fall back on the circumstances which, in any event, has been oftener than ever held to be not susceptible to the human frailty of advancing a falsehood.