REMANI @ SUJATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a lady aged 43 years, had preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence under S.302 IPC, in S.C.No.736 of 2010, dated 31.12.2010, of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur, in connection with the death of an age old lady by name Hymavathy while she was leading a secluded life along with her husband (PW1) in a flat. They were provided with a home nurse, the accused herein, by a private concern "Perfect Nursing Service" run by PW4, and she used to stay with the deceased lady in her room during night time. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under S.394 IPC, though she was charge sheeted for the said offence. The accused was found guilty for the offence of murder of the deceased Hymavathy, aged 80 years, under S.302 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused had come up with this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case through the witnesses unfolded as follows: On the ill-fated day, the accused, a lady home nurse, as usual, was sleeping along with the deceased in their bedroom. At about 10.00 p.m., electric supply was cut off. So, PW1 had gone to the balcony and sat there for some time. After some time, the accused came there and asked PW1 to go for sleep. Then he went to his bedroom. At about 10.30 p.m., he heard some feeble sound from the bedroom of his wife. The door of the bedroom of his wife was found to be locked from inside. He called the accused and asked her to open the door, but there was no response. Immediately he went to the verandha and called the Security. Hearing his sound, Tomy (PW2) and his wife Lucy, the immediate neighbours, came there. All of them, four in numbers, again called the accused and asked her to open the door of the bedroom. The Security even made a threat to the accused that he would break open the door. It is at that time she opened the door. Thereon they saw the victim lying on the floor in an unconscious condition. PW1, by that time, informed the matter to the police. The police also came to the place of occurrence and found the accused sitting on a small bed inside the room. The body of the victim was found lying dead on the floor of the room. Though she was removed to the hospital, she was declared brought dead.

(3.) The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, detection and recovery of MO1 to MO4, and the medical evidence adduced, besides the scientific evidence. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are: (1) That the accused and deceased were alone in the bedroom during the odd hours of the night of the ill-fated day. (2) The alleged incident happened within the secrecy of the bedroom which was found locked inside at the time when the alleged offence was committed. (3) The accused did not explain how the victim sustained injuries on her neck. (4) The explanation submitted by the accused during her examination under S.313 Cr.P.C. did not disclose how the victim sustained injuries on her neck. (5) The accused during her examination under S.313 Cr.P.C. admits her presence in the room and also admits that none else was there in the room except the victim at the time of alleged incident. (6) She had also admitted that the room was locked from inside. (7) The accused admitted the scuffle between her and the victim inside the room. (8) The accused had also admitted that she had sustained a bite injury on her left hand from the victim. (9) She had also mounted on the box under S.314 Cr.P.C. and gave evidence as a witness admitting that she and the victim alone were there in the bedroom at the time of alleged incident and the room was locked inside. (10) The exculpating portion of S.313 statement given by the accused prima facie found to be false. (11) There is inconsistency between the statement given under S.313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of her examination under S.314 Cr.P.C. as DW1. Different versions were supplied by her while under S.313 Cr.P.C. and as a witness under S.314 Cr.P.C. (12) Human saliva was detected on the bite mark on the left hand of the accused under chemical examination. (13) During her examination under S.314 Cr.P.C., she had admitted breakage of tip of her finger nail during the course of alleged incident. (14) During postmortem examination, a piece of tip of nail was recovered from the larynx of the victim.