STATE Vs. SAMYKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, who faced trial for an offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C. in s. C. No. 26 of 1986 on the file of Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at nagercoil.

(2.) BRIEF facts are: (a) The accused is a resident of villukuri, situate within the limits of Eraniel Police Station. He is none else than the sister's son of P. W. 4. P. W. 4's daughter is one Saroja (since deceased), who had been given in marriage to the accused one and a half years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 4th April, 1986. P. W. 4 had been residing in adjacent Village going by the name Gnaroad. (b) P. W. 9 is the brother of the accused. Both of them are agricultural coolies. On the morning of the day of the occurrence they went to do agricultural cooly work. The wife of P. W. 9 brought porridge to the place of work. Somehow or other, the deceased wife of the accused did not bring porridge to him. Consequently he shared the porridge brought by the wife of p. W. 9. The accused was, however, stated to be irritated by the conduct of the deceased, his wife, in not having brought porridge to him for his lunch that day. After the day's work, both the accused and P. W. 9 returned home. (c) At about 8 p. m. ,p. Ws. 1 and 2 residing in the same street in which the accused had been residing happened to pass through the house of the accused, so as to purchase some provisions in the bazaar. At that time, they were able to hear hue and cry emerging from the house of the accused. Daunted by curiosity both of them saw as to what was transpiring inside the house. A chimney (M. O. 1) was then burning inside the house. The accused went on beating his wife, the deceased with palymyrah stem (M. O. 2) all over the parts of her body. In the process of such beating, the palmyrah stem got split into pieces. Therefore, the accused was stated to have abandoned beating her with M. O. 2 palmyrah stem and threw it away. He then started kicking her with his right leg, besides also giving beating with his right hand on her left cheek, the consequence of which was, she fell down fainted and fits supervened. P. Ws. 1 and 2 asked the accused the reason why he had beaten his wife. The accused told them that she did not at all bring porridge to the place of work for his lunch and that was the reason he got irritated and thrashed his wife, the deceased. They appeared to have advised the accused to at least give her treatment by bringing medical personnel. The accused, in turn, went outside and procured P. W. 5 a compounder for the purpose of giving her treatment. When p. W. 5 came and examined her, he found her already dead. P. Ws. 1 and 2 went away from there. (d) The accused appeared to have sent information to his father-in-law P. W. 4 through one Subramanian. P. W. 4, in turn on the next morning, along with other relations, visited the house of the accused. On his arrival, he found the deceased lying on the floor covered with a cloth. On lifting the cloth, he was able to find injuries on her person. He suspected some foul-play. He enquired from P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were there and they appeared to have divulged the real reason for the death of the deceased. (e) P. W. 4 then rushed and reached Eraniel Police Station at 10 a. m. He gave Ex. P-3 report to P. W. 10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. The time was then 11 a. m. P. W. 10 registered the case in Crime No. 75/ 86 for an offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Ex. P-8 is the express report sent to court through constable, P. W. 11. (f) P. W. 13 was the then Inspector of Police. At 12. 30 p. m. , he received express F. I. R. and took up further investigation in the case. He went to the scene and after inspecting the scene, prepared Ex. P-9 observation mahazar. He also drew Ex. P-10 rough sketch of the scene. He held inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest he examined P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Ex. P-11 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable P. W. 12, along with a requisition ex. P-1 for the purpose of autopsy. He seized No. 1 chimney lamp under Ex. 12 attapshi. In the meantime, he also caused photographs to be taken of the scene, along with the body of the deceased, through the photographer, P. W. 8. Ex. P-6 series are photographs. Ex. P-7 series are the negatives. (g) P. W. 3 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Colachel. On receipt of Ex. P-1, he held autopsy over the body of the deceased on 6. 4. 1986 at 10 a. m. Ex. P-2 is the post-mortem certificate. He would opine that the injury No. 12, with its corresponding internal injuries, is fatal and she could have lived 10 to 12 hours after receiving the said injury. He would also opine that all the injuries, he found described in Ex. P-2, are ante-mortem. (h) On 7. 4. 1986 at about 4 a. m. P. W. 6 went to Vadaseri shandy along with one Purushothaman. They went on bicycles. When they were proceeding near Kanchimutt Sasthankovil, they happened to sight the accused and immediately thereafter, the accused was caught hold of by them and an information had been sent to Eraniel Police Station. P. W. 13 came there at 6. 30 a. m. He arrested the accused. On interrogation, he was stated to have given a voluntary confession statement under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-4. The accused then took P. W. 13 and others to his house and took out M. O. 2 kept concealed underneath a jack tree in his garden, which was seized under Ex. P-5 mahazar attested by P. W. 7. The accused had then been remanded to judicial custody. (i) P. W. 13 also sent the seized material objects to the court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel. After completing the investigating p. W. 13 filed the final report under Sec. 173 (2), Crl. P. C. On 17. 4. 1986 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Eraniel for an offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C.

(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, accused and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered the verdict of acquittal.