ASHOK ALIAS AROKIYA ASHOK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused is the appellant. He was charged with committing the murder of his wife, Devi on 9.7.2001 at 7.45 pm at Door No.76, V Street, Vijayaraghavapuram, Saligramam, Chennai-93, by stabbing her with a knife. He was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- THE deceased had gone to the house of her mother Tmt. Rajamani, P.W.2 for her confinement and delivered a girl child. At 7.30 pm on 9.7.2001, the appellant came to the house of P.W.2. At that time, the deceased was with her child on her lap. THEre was a wordy quarrel between the couple. THE deceased went inside the house. THE appellant followed her inside the house, picked up a knife, M.O.1 and stabbed the deceased. This was seen by P.W.2. At the time of occurrence, P.W.2, her daughter Vasanthi (not examined), her son-in-law Subramani (not examined), Nithyanandan (P.W.9) and one Nathan (not examined) were present outside the house. THE door of the room in which the offence took place was bolted by the appellant when he followed the deceased. On hearing the cries of the deceased and the alarm raised by P.W.2, they broke open the door and went inside. When the door opened, the accused ran out with the knife in his hand. THE deceased was lying in a pool of blood. She was immediately taken to Surya Hospital by P.W.1, Subramani and Nathan, who had come there on hearing the commotion. At the hospital, the deceased was pronounced dead by P.W.3, who issued Ex.P.2, the Accident Register. P.W.9, who was visiting his mother-in-law who lives opposite P.W.2's house, also heard the noise and rushed to the house of P.W.2. He accompanied P.W.1 and others when they entered the house of P.W.2 by breaking open the door upon hearing the cries of the deceased and P.W.9 also saw the accused coming out of the house with M.O.1, knife in his hand. P.W.9 tried to stop him and in that process, he sustained an injury in his right hand. At about 7.45 pm, P.W.7, who lives in the house opposite P.W.2's house and who was watching T.V. at that time, after hearing the commotion, came out of his house. He saw the accused coming out of the house of P.W.2 with a blood stained knife in his hand and run towards the IV Street. At about 8 pm, P.W.9 was taken to the K.K. Nagar Hospital by the police for treatment of his injury, and on examination by the Doctor P.W.4, Ex.P.3, the injury certificate, was issued. At about 9 pm on 9.7.2001, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, received the complaint, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.1137 of 2001 and commenced the investigation. He went to Surya Hospital and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem examination along with the requisition, Ex.P.4. He forwarded Ex.P.11, the Express F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate and to other higher authorities. He then proceeded to the scene of crime and conducted the inquest. He prepared the rough sketch, Ex.P.12 and the observation mahazar, Ex.P.9. At about 11.05 pm on 9.7.2001, he recovered M.O.4 to M.O.8, viz. the blood stained child mattress, blood stained child frock, blood stained cloth, sample earth and sample cement floor respectively, from the scene of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses on 9.7.2001 and 10.7.2001. THE inquest report is Ex.P.13. At 2.30 pm on 10.7.2001, the appellant was arrested and the admissible portion of the confessional statement given by the accused is Ex.P.8. At 3.30 pm on the same day, in the presence of witnesses, P.W.11 recovered M.O.1, knife under Ex.P.7, mahazar. At about 4 pm, he remanded the accused to judicial custody. P.W.5, the Doctor, conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased on 10.7.2001 and issued the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P.5. Ex.P.6 is the Serology Report. THE blood stained M.Os. were sent for chemical analysis and the reports are marked as Exs.P.14, 15 and 16. P.W.11 completed the investigation and thereafter filed the charge sheet.

(3.) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case and whether there are any mitigating circumstances warranting reduction of sentence.