PANCHALINGAM @ CHINNATHAMBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, in a case of murder, on being found guilty and awarded life imprisonment by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, is challenging the said judgment in this appeal.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal could be stated thus:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would submit that in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, this prosecution examined two witnesses as eye witnesses to the occurrence and of them, P.W.2 turned hostile and the prosecution was left -with the evidence of P.W. 1, who is none else than the mother of this deceased. According to the learned counsel, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that she has come forward with a false case and she, being an interested witness, her evidence ought to have been rejected, but the Lower Court, on the other hand, has accepted the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel also pointed out that the accused, alongwith P.Ws. 1 and 2, accompanied injured Chitra to the hospital and if the accused had actually assaulted the deceased, he would not have taken her to the hospital and the Lower Court has failed to take into account this particular circumstance. Further, according to the learned counsel, assuming that it was the accused, who beat the deceased with a firewood at the time of occurrence, even then, his act would not fall within the ambit of murder, as the post -mortem certificate reveals that all the injuries were on the non -vital parts of the body and this would indicate that it was not the intention of the accused to cause the death of his wife. Therefore, the act of the accused would only attract one of the exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C and this aspect has to be considered by this Court. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the above contentions.