MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the accused in S. C. 29/1982 of the sessions Court, Quilon. APPELLANT was charged under S. 302 of the IPC. for having caused the death of his wife by cutting her with a chopper. The learned sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him under S. 302 of the ipc. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) ACCUSED, his wife Maria and their three children were residing in the house of accused's brother pw 1 some 14 days prior to the incident. On 20-8-1981, accused, his wife (deceased), their eldest son pw. 2 and pw. 3 went to a forest area to collect bamboo. The prosecution case is that while they were engaged in collecting bamboo, accused posed a challenge to his wife regarding his intimacy with pw. 5, that the deceased's reply was not liked by the accused and that he inflicted a cut on the neck of the deceased with m. O. 1 chopper causing her serious injury which proved fatal. The injured was taken by pw. 3 to a nearby place area pw. 1 was informed about the incident and he came and saw accused's wife lying dead. pw. 1 went to Kadakkal police station and lodged Ext. P1 first information statement. The investigation of the case was done by pw. 11, Circle Inspector.

(3.) PW. 1 who is the brother of the accused and PW. 3 (Pw. 1's wife) were declared hostile to the prosecution. PW. 1 stated that he got information about the incident from his son Prakasan. Ext. P1 mentions that accused, deceased, PW. 1's wife PW. 3, PW. 2 and Prakasan went to the forest area to gather bamboo and it was there that the incident happened. PW. 3 though declared hostile to the prosecution admitted that M. 0. 1 chopper was used by the accused to collect bamboo and that he sharpened the same. It is admitted by her that when the deceased sustained injury accused alone was near her. She candidly admitted that she has been very affectionate towards the accused and she always bestowed motherly affection on him, As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the above evidence would show the reason why PW. 3 retracted from her statement before the police and took up the diagonally opposite stand that she did not witness the incident. Though she was declared hostile to the prosecution her evidence really lends support to the testimony of PW. 2 with regard to bis presence and the presence of the accused and the deceased at the place of incident.