JOSEPH ALIAS AVUTHAKUNHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Joseph stands convicted under S. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to the extreme penalty for having caused the death of his wife.

(2.) IT is alleged that at about 8 or 8-30 P. M. on 13 31962 the accused who was not getting on too well with his wife Thressia quarrelled with her and as the result of the severe man-handling that followed she died on the spot. Two of the accused's neighbours Chandy (Pw. 1) and sivaraman Chettiar (Pw. 2) who had heard the sounds of the beating and thressia's cries, but had not thought of interfering in the quarrel, were informed by the accused that when he returned home he found his wife lying dead in the court-yard of the house. These witnesses went out to the accused's house and saw the dead body. Then at the request of the accused Pw. 1 went and reported the incident to the father of the accused. He also informed Pw. 4 ulahannan who on the next day at 6-15 P. M. went to the Irikkur Police Station and gave the information that the accused's wife had died under suspicious circumstances. Within a few hours the police arrived on the scene of occurrence and conducted the inquest. The dead body was sent to Kuthuparamba Government hospital where the post-mortem was conducted on the morning of the 16th. The accused who was not found at the house when the police arrived was arrested at a place four furlongs from his house at 5 P. M. on the 15th.

(3.) THIS is a typical case where suspicions have been substituted for proof. There is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Instead of considering the prosecution evidence, first, the learned judge began to pick holes in the defence suggestion and tried to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case by the defects in the defence arguments. The judgment starts with a discussion of the defence suggestion of a fall from a cashew tree standing in the court-yard of the accused's house. The very approach made by the learned judge is decidedly wrong. The accused has no obligation to prove his innocence. The burden to prove the accused's guilt is ever on the prosecution and if the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of doubt the accused should be acquitted no matter how far-fetched and unconving his suggestions might appear to be. THIS may appear to be too elementary, but it is the obvious that is often missed and the first principles that are always disregarded.