ALAGARSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: THE appellant is the husband of the deceased Jayakodi pandiammal. THEir marriage was solemnized one year prior to the occurrence. THE accused is working as a Carpenter. THE deceased-wife requested her husband to purchase a fan. THE appellant asked the deceased to make a demand of rs. 1000/-from her father, which he will repay in instalments. THE deceased answered in negative stating that her father was a sick and poor person. After few days thereafter, the husband and wife had the same quarrel regarding the purchase of a fan. At that time, P. W. 1 brother of the deceased intervened their quarrel and stated that he would purchase a fan within a year and requested them not to indulge in quarrel. On 26. 5. 1993, at about 7. 00 a. m. , the appellant, the deceased, P. W. 1 and another brother of the deceased were returning home after purchasing some groceries and vegetables. Again the accused asked the deceased to make a demand of Rs. 1000/- for the purchase of fan. In the wordy quarrel that arose, the deceased uttered @cs; mf;fh. j';if mk;khit Rl;;o bfhlj;j gzk; th';f@/ On hearing this, the appellant suddenly provoked, pushed the deceased down, caught hold of her hands, took a soori knife (M. O. 1) from his waist and stabbed the deceased five times on her stomach. He threatened both P. W. 1 and the another brother of the deceased and ran away from the scene of occurrence. In that attack, the intensities of the deceased came out. P. W. 1 and his brother informed the same to the relatives and took the deceased in a cycle to the hospital. But on the way, she succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 1 rushed to vilampatti Police Station and lodged Ex. P. 1 a complaint and on the strength of it, P. W. 6, the sub Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 113/1993 under Section 302 IPC. At about 1. 30 p. m. printed fir Ex. P. 9 was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, while copies were sent to the higher officials.

(2.) P. W. 8, Inspector of Police, Sempati Circle in charge of Batlakundu police Station on receipt of the copy of the First Information report, took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex. P. 3 and rough sketch EX. P. 14 in the presence of P. W. 4 and other witnesses. He seized M. O. 2-blood stained earth; M. O. 3 � Sample earth and M. O. 5- a bag containing groceries under Ex. P. 4 in the presence of the said witnesses. He proceeded to the place where he found the dead body and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex,p. 5 in the presence of same witnesses. The investigating Officer conducted a inquest on the dead body in front of the panchayatars and witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex. P. 15. He had examined the witnesses and recorded the statements, and at the time of inquest, P. W. 1 produced the blood stained shirt M. O. 4 which was recovered under Ex. P. 6 in front of P. W. 4 and another witness. On a request made by P. W. 8 the investigating Officer , P. W. 3 Doctor attached to Government Hospital, nilakkottai conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and has issued ex. P. 2, postmortem certificate and has opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to abdominal injuries.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia made the following submissions: The lower court has found the accused guilty under section 304 (i) when there is absolutely no evidence for the prosecution side. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P. W. 1 and no independent witness was examined to support the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, P. W. 1 was the brother of the deceased and he is not only related to the deceased but also interested in the deceased. The medical evidence through P. W. 3 cannot be said to be fully corroborated the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P. W. 5, village Administrative Officer, through him, the prosecution attempted to prove the confessional statement of the arrested accused and recovered M. O. 1 soori knife, does not stand beyond doubts and thus it can be well stated that there was lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution and the lower court without proper appreciation of evidence found that the accused has caused the death of his wife. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming the prosecution has proved the case, the act committed by the appellant which would fall under Section 326 IPC and does not fall under Section 304 (i)IPC and in so far as the sentence is concerned, the Court has to consider the said aspect and to reduce the sentence.