JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted of the offence of murder of his wife, Devaki and sentenced to imprisonment for life. THE case against him is that she was suffering from some mental derangement for the past 3 or 4 years prior to the incident, on account of that she used to disobey the appellant resulting in frequent quarrels between them, on 9 9 77 she refused to go and draw water from a well in the near-by compound of pw. 1, the appellant made her go and fetch water therefrom by threatening her with a stick and subsequently at about 4 P. M. that day cut her throat with M. O. 3 kitchen-knife causing her instantaneous death THE scene of occurrence is alleged to be the eastern court-yard of their house in Ezhalloor Kara within the jurisdiction of the Thodupuzha Police Station. pw. 1, the brother of the appellant gave Ext. P1 first information statement at 8 P. M. the same day before the Thodupuzha Police station situate 12 K. Ms, north-east of the scene of occurrence. Ext. P2 is the inquest report. THE appellant was arrested on 119 1977. When questioned under s. 313, Criminal Procedure Code he denied that he had anything to do with the death of Devaki.

(2.) THE evidence of pw. 7 who conducted the autopsy on devaki's dead body and Ext P3 post-mortem certificate issued by pw. 7 establish that Devaki met with violent death at the hands of an assailant. THEre were four injuries on her body and and none of them was self-inflicted. Two of the injuries, Nos. 1 and 4 in Ext. P3, were fatal, each by itself and according to pw. 7, Devaki would not have survived more than 5 minutes after she sustained those injuries. THE said injuries are: " (1) A horizontal incised wound 16 cros. x 2 cm x 8 cm directed medially and forwards over the upper part of right side of neck tailing off forwards to a point 2 cm below the root of right ear. On exploration, it is seen, that the underlying Caseia muscles, the carotid artery, jugular veins etc are cut horizontally and the injury is going deep into the atlante occipital joint by cutting the atlante occipital ligaments on the right side. (4) A horizontal gaping wound 28 cm. x 7 x cm 16 cm. over the right side of root of neck starting from the middle of the posterior aspect of left shoulder web and tailing off to a point just above the medial end of left collar bone. THE injury is directed medially and forwards cutting horizontally the underlying fasciae, muscles, carotid artery, the jugular veins, the intervening nerves, the trachea, oesephagus, the inlet-vertebral disc between the fifth and sixth cervical vertebras and the spinal cord THE neck remains attached to the trunk only through a thin part of skin and soft tissues on the left side and this connecting soft tissues is only II cm, in length and 2. 5 cm. in thickness. " THEre can be no doubt that the assailant's intention was to kill Devaki.

(3.) CIRCUMSTANCES serialised as Nos. 1 to 7 are not in dispute but anyone of them separately or all of them cumulatively will not lead to an inevitable inference that it was the appellant who killed Devaki. CIRCUMSTANCES mentioned as 8 and 9 go together, and the fact relied on is that the appellant failed to inform the police of the violent death of Devaki. He was not asked about it when he was questioned under S. 312 of the Criminal procedure Code. The next fact relied on by the lower court is that the appellant absconded till 1191977 when he surrendered There is no evidence that the appellant absconded nor was any question put to him under S. 313 of the criminal Procedure Code when he was questioned thereunder. Besides absconding by itself is not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. See Kunharu v. State of Kerala (1963 KLT 325 ). Two other circumstances relied on by the lower court are the recovery of M. 0. 10 kail. (cloth) stained with human blood from inside the appellant's house and of M 0. 3 blood-stained kitchen-knife from his courtyard. These M. Os were found not even pursuant to any information received from the appellant. Here again it is necessary to state that the appellant was not questioned about these matters. He was asked only as to what he has to say about pw. 12 [the Crime Branch Detective Inspector] deposing that he recovered m. Os. 3 and 10 as per the inquest report. It is hardly necessary to state that failure to question the accused' 'specifically, distinctly and separately' as regards each material circumstances appearing in evidence against him is a serious irregularity vitiating the trial if the same has prejudiced the accused. See S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn ), AIR. 1976 SC. 2140 [2146].