SAMBASIVAN @ SAMBAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAMBAN @ Sambasivan, the accused, and Usha, the deceased, husband and wife, were living separately due to strained marital relationship. Wife was residing alone in Oliyanikkal house at Manimaruthumchal, belonging to her husband. Prosecution case is that on 20/11/2002 at about 6.45 p.m with the intention and knowledge of committing murder of his wife, the accused came to Oliyanikkal house compound. Usha, at that time, was taking bath in the "marapura". Accused who was hiding behind a teak tree near the "marapura", on the side of a well, charged in and stabbed on her chest, abdomen and back with a knife inflicting fatal injuries and pulled her down to the pond nearby and left the place by swimming across a river and surrendered before Adimali police station on the same day at 10.30 p.m. Neighbouring house owners gathered around after hearing the hue and cry of Usha and found her lying naked in the nearby pond and crying for help. A lungi was brought from a nearby house for her to wear and she was taken to Baselious Hospital, Kothamangalam and later to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. While undergoing treatment at the hospital she died on 05/12/2002.

(2.) THE Head Constable of Oonnukal police station reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased on 21/11/2002 on receiving information from the Medical Trust Hospital. On the basis of the F.I statement, F.I.R was prepared and crime No. 155 of 2002 was registered for an offence punishable under S.307 IPC. The accused was arrested on 22/11/2002 at 10.30 a.m and on the basis of the information furnished by him the knife used for the offence was recovered from a pond near the place of occurrence. Subsequent to the death of the victim accused was charge sheeted for the offence under S.302 IPC and produced before court. On pleading not guilty to the charge, prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 20 were examined and Exts. P1 to P21 documents were marked. MOs 1 to 5 were also marked. The accused was questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all incriminating circumstance and evidence. He denied having committed any offence. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the accused had inflicted the injuries on the deceased which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- in default of which to undergo imprisonment for six months.

(3.) SRI Biji Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, submitted that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel also submitted that the evidence of PWs 8 and 10 is not reliable. PWs 2, 3 and 4 who are neighbours of the deceased turned hostile to the prosecution and PW 5 who allegedly sold MO 1 to the accused also did not support; the prosecution. Counsel also submitted that no reliance should have been placed on the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW 8 especially when PWs 2, 3 and 4 had given inconsistent versions. Counsel also submitted that PW 10 is only a chance witness who gave conflicting statements to the police as well as to the court. Counsel also submitted that no proper recovery was effected and the story put up by the investigating officer cannot be believed. In any view of the matter, counsel submitted that there is no legal evidence to the connect the accused with the offence. Counsel submitted that the pond from where MO 1 was recovered was also accessible to public and the chance of planting MO 1 knife cannot be ruled out. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence to show that the weapon used to inflict injuries on the deceased is the one that was recovered and it does not tally with the injuries sustained by the deceased. Counsel submitted that in any view of the matter the injuries inflicted were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that there was motive for the commission of the offence. Evidence of PW 8 is reliable. Evidence of PW 8 is corroborated by PW 10. Counsel submitted that knife was recovered on the information furnished by the accused. Prosecutor submitted that medical evidence shows that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.