BOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 324, 324 and 352 I. P. C. After trial the trial court found him guilty and convicted him under Sections 449 302, 324 (two counts) and 352 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated below: (i) Under Section 449 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. (iii) Under Section 324 IPC (two counts) - One-year rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. (iv) Under Section 352 IPC - Fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo one-month simple imprisonment. THE trial court also directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows. (a) THE deceased in the case is the wife of the accused. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. P. W. 3 is the co-brother of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is the elder sister of P. W. 3's wife. Three years prior to 18. 10. 1999 (four years before the trial of the case), the accused and the deceased were married and after the marriage, they went to Mumbai to eke their livelihood. At Mumbai, the accused came addicted to alcohol and he has pledged 13 sovereigns of gold jewels, which belonged to the deceased and also sold the household articles for the purpose of purchasing liquor and very often he used to beat the deceased. (b) P. Ws. 1 and 2 got information about the activities of the accused through one Kasinathan. P. Ws. 1 and 2 questioned the father of the accused Palanivelu. THE said Palanivelu directed his son Karunamoorthi to accompany P. Ws. 1 and 2 to Mumbai and when they went to Mumbai, P. Ws. 1 and 2 saw their daughter admitted in a hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused. After treatment, they brought her daughter and the accused to Thogavoor and made them to live separately. At Thogavoor also, the accused abused the deceased and drove her to her parental house. THEreafter, in the presence of one Madhavan, there was a panchayat and in which the accused was advised and the deceased was sent with her husband. Within one month thereafter, the accused sold the clothes of the deceased and also her'thali' and drove her away. THE deceased Vallimayil took shelter in her parents house. (c) Some time prior to 18. 10. 1999, the accused came with a knife and demanded his wife to be sent along with him, for which P. W. 1 refused. At that time, the accused showed a knife and threatened that he will kill his wife. One Kannusamy, who was residing four houses away, came there and advised the accused and sent him away. (d) On 18. 10. 1999, at about 1. 00 a. m. , P. Ws. 1 and 2 were sleeping in their house along with her daughter Vallimayil. P. W. 3 was also sleeping in the same house and the door was not locked. All of a sudden, the accused came inside at 1. 00 a. m. and cut the deceased indiscriminately with aruval and on the alarm raised by the Vallimayil, P. Ws. 1 to 3 saw the accused cutting the deceased. When they tried to catch him, the accused cut on the left index finger of P. W. 1 and also on left thumb of P. W. 2. When P. W. 3 also tried to catch him, the accused pushed him and ran away. THE injured Vallimayil was taken in a van arranged by one Subramaniam, Panchayat President. When the injured was taken to Ilayankudi Government Hospital, the medical officer who examined the injured Vallimayil declared that she was already dead. (e) On receipt of phone message from Government hospital, ilayankudi, P. W. 11 Inspector of Police, went to the hospital at 4. 00 a. m. and recorded Ex. P-1 statement given by P. W. 1. Based on Ex. P-1, P. W. 11 Inspector of police registered a case in Crime No. 153 of 1999 under Sections 324 and 302 i. P. C. Ex. P-13 is the printed FIR and the same was sent to the Judicial magistrate and the copies were sent to higher officials. (f) THEreafter, P. W. 11 took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at about 6. 15 a. m. and drew Ex. P-14 rough sketch. In the presence of P. W. 6 Nallathambi and one Vattayutham, he prepared Ex. P-3 observation mahazar. From the place of occurrence, he seized M. O. 9 and M. O. 10 bloodstained mats, M. O. 11 bloodstained Pillow, M. Os. 12 and 13 bloodstained pillow Covers, M. O. 14 bloodstained Lungi, M. O. 15 bloodstained sari, M. O. 16 bloodstained towel, M. O. 17 bloodstained Blouse, M. O. 18 bloodstained earth, m. O. 19 sample earth and M. O. 20 zero watt bulb under under Ex. P-4 mahazar in the presence witnesses. THEreafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Vallimayil in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P-15 Inquest Report. After inquest, he examined p. Ws. 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem through P. W. 10 Head Constable with Ex. P-11 requisition. (g) On 18. 10. 1999 at about 11. 15 a. m. , P. Ws. 8 and 9 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries. "injuries: - 1. 12x5x6cm lacerated injury extending from right upper part of ear upto right cheek. 5cm from the angle of mouth exposing right maxilla, right ramus of mandible. Blood clots present. Wound gaping present. Bone chips present. On exploration of the wound: - Right parotid gland lacerated. Right facal artery veins and nerve torn. Blood clots present. Fracture right temporal bone (petrous part ). Extent of the wound: On left side 2cm from midline right side 2 cm from the wound No. 1. Below base of mandible above upper lip.

(3.) P. Ws 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased. P. W. 1 was first seen by P. W. 8, Tmt. Azma Begum by 3. 35 a. m. ,on 18. 10. 1999 within about 2 hours of the occurrence. At that time it was informed by PW. 1 that the injury was caused on him at about 01. 00 a. m. , by a known person with Aruval at Therku samuthiram and on examination, P. W. 8 found an incised injury of 2 cm x cm x cm in the Palmer aspect of the left index finger and Ex. P. 0 is the wound certificate. Similarly, P. W. 2, Alagammal, mother of the deceased was also seen by P. W. 8 at 3. 50 a. m. , on the same day and she also informed the Doctor that she sustained injuries at 1. 00 a. m. , on the same day by a known person with aruval at her house at Therku Samuthiram and the Doctor has found (i) an incised wound 1 cm x cm x cm on the tip of right index finger in the Palmer aspect and (ii) another incised wound 1 cm x cm x cm in the Palmer aspect of left palm, near ring finger. Both injuries were simple in nature. According to P. Ws 1 and 2, they sustained injuries at the hands of the accused when they tried to prevent the accused from causing injuries to their daughter. The presence of P. Ws 1 and 2 at their house at about 1. 00 am. , on the date of occurrence is natural and therefore there is nothing to suspect the evidence of p. Ws 1 and 2.