VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal appeal filed by the accused arises from the judgment dated 22.5.2010 of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.6.2007, at about 8.15 hours, the accused stabbed his wife Narayani with a knife, in a paddy field at Chathamangalam on the north eastern side of the house of one Chandu, with the intention of committing murder and as a result of that act, she succumbed to the injury. The accused had also consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide, and, thereby, according to the prosecution, he had committed offences punishable under both Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

(2.) THE accused was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Sulthanbathery, which committed the case to the Sessions Court, Wayanad. Charges were framed against the accused on 25.8.2008. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Exts. P1 to P14 and proved Material Objects 1 to 18. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he denied all the incriminatory evidence used against him. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the court below found that the prosecution had proved that the accused had committed the murder of his wife Narayani and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The court below also found that the prosecution had proved that the accused had consumed poison in an attempt to commit suicide, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. The trial court therefore convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently and a set off was also permitted of the detention period.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there has been a correct marshalling of the evidence by the court below and the attempt by the appellant to pick holes in the prosecution case on the ground of alleged defective investigation is not legally tenable.