ABDUL KADER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, Abdul Kader, has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of his wife, Kathija Bibi, by stabbing her several times with a bicbuva at about 7-30 a. m. on 2. 1. 1567 in his house at Varpet village, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. There can be no doubt in this case that the appellant and his wife Kathija Bibi were not on good terms. The learned Sessions Judge has however observed in paragraph 13 of his judgment that the motive for the murder is not clear. P. W. 2, Fathima Bibi, the mother of the appellant, who was permitted to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, has stated in her evidence that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased because of the appellant suspecting the fidelity of his wife. In fact, the appellant has married again, The appellant does not also dispate the fact that he has married again. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant wrote the letter Ex. P. 8 and sent it in the envelope Ex. P. 9 from Madurai on the day prior to the occurrence to his father-in-law, P. W. 10, Kadir Batcha living in Sem-boothi village, which is at a distance of 15 miles from Varpet village of the appellant. In that letter the appellant has stated that he has divorced his wife and that P. W. 10 could come and take his daughter home. The evidence of P. W. 10 shows that he received this letter shortly after he received information about the occurrence in this case.

(2.) THE appellant is a vendor of ready-made clothes at Madurai. About 8 days prior to the occurrence in this case, he brought his mother (P. W. 2), his wife, Kathija Bibi, and his two children, a boy and a girl, the former being 31/2 years old, to live in his house in the village of Varpet. The appellant came to the village on the morning of 24th January 1967 and the occurrence in this case took place within a short time thereafter. P. W. 2 was in the house with the deceased and the two children. P. W. 1 Kadir Bibi, is the sister of P. W. 2. Though she lives with her son in a house at a distance of 11/2 furlongs from that of the appellant, she looks after her grocery shop, which is just opposite to the house of the appellant. She used to open this shop between 7 and 8 a. m. It is clear from the evidence of both P. Ws. 1 and 2 that when the appellant came to his house on the morning of the date of occurrence, there was none else in his house except P. W. 2, the deceased and the two children. The evidence of P. W. 2 in the Sessions Court is that when the appellant came home, he started abusing her, pushed her down and she became unconscious and she did not know anything about the occurrence in this case. She was permitted to be cross-examined and she was cross-examined with reference to her statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal P. C. , which supports the prosecution case. In that statement she has explained how she sustained injuries while she dragged her eon when he was attacking Kathija Bibi. The evidence given by her is the Committal Court hag not been marked under Section 288, Criminal P. C. The statement given by P. W. 2 under Section 164, Criminal P. C. , can be used only to contradict her evidence and it cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

(3.) P. W. 1, Kadir Bibi, deposed that she saw the appellant entering his house and a little later heard cries of alarm from inside the house, went there and found the appellant standing near the deceased, who was lying on her back fiat on the ground, and her sister F. W. 2 standing nearby. Her evidence in the Sessions Court is that after witnessing the same, she came out in order to go and report to her son that the deceased was lying on the ground, perhaps, unconscious. The Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine this witness with reference to her prior statement Ex. P-1 recorded under Section 164, Criminal P. C. , and the evidence given by her in the committal Court. The evidence given by this witness in the committal Court has been admitted under Section 288, Criminal P. C. , and marked as Ex. P-2. In Exs. P-l and P-2, P. W. 1 has started that on hearing the cries from inside the he use of the appellant, she ran there and saw the appellant with a knife in his hand. In Ex. P-1. she has stated that she saw the appellant trampling the neck of Kathija Bibi by his right leg and that she ran away in fear. In her evidence, in the committal Court she has stated that she saw the appellant having his right leg on the neck of the deceased and having a knife in his hand, that she got frightened and left the place to call her son. One important question for determination in this case is, whether the version given by P. W. 1 in Ex. P 2 is true.