SANKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of uxoricide. The appellant accused was convicted under S.302 I.P.C. for killing his wife and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The said conviction and sentence are being challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case can be condensed thus: In the night of 15-11-1989, the accused, after murdering his wife, Thankamani, by strangulation went over to the house of his neighbour, Sankarankutty with a chopper and laid down in the veranda. He did not go away from there in spite of the repeated demands made to him. Seeing the strange conduct of the accused, Sankarankutty went to the house of P.W.5, a close relative, at about 3 a.m. to do something in the matter. Thereupon P.W.5 came to the house and asked to accused to go away but he did not respond. Then P.W.5 and others went to the house of the accused and called his wife and son but no one came out. P.W.5 thereafter, alongwith Narayanan, son of Sankarankutty, went to the house of Panchayat President. After hearing the incident, the President telephoned to the Irinjalakuda Police station. Thereupon P.W.5 and Narayanan hired a taxi car and rushed to the police station. The matter was narrated to the police and thereafter two police constables came to the scene. They found the accused lying in the veranda of the house. Then they went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Thankamani on the upstair room of the house. P.W.1 Head Constable took the accused into custody and brought to the police station and submitted a report to P.W.12 the Assistant Sub Inspector. Ext. P1 is the report submitted by P.W.1 and Ext. P6 is the F.I.R. prepared by P.W.12. On the basis of the report, Crime No.304/89 was registered. A police constable was deputed to guard the dead body. Then the investigation was taken over by P. W.13, Circle Inspector of Police. He went to the scene and held the inquest. Ext. P4 is the inquest report prepared by him. Thereafter the deadbody was sent for post mortem. Ext. P2 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W.8 doctor. After completing the investigation P. W.13 filed the final report. The Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Irinjalakuda committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under S.302 I.P.C. against the accused. .

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and thereafter accused was questioned as required under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contrary to the plea raised earlier, the accused explicitly admitted certain incriminating circumstances found against him. However, he has raised a plea of unsoundness of mind. During the trial as well as at the time of questioning the learned Sessions Judge found the accused normal in behaviour. However, considering the nature of certain answers given by the accused during the examination under S.313, the learned Sessions Judge referred the accused to the Superintendent, Mental Health Centre, Trichur for his opinion in so far as the mental state of the accused. According to the report submitted by the Psychiatrist the accused was found to be normal though he had complained of some memory loss. The report further reveals that at present there is no evidence of unsoundness of mind.